Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92248 Case Number: LCR13703 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CASSIDYS GROUP STORE - and - A WORKER |
A dispute concerning alleged constructive dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court does not find grounds to uphold the claim of the
complainant that she was unfairly dismissed.
However, the Court considers that given the record and the
service of the employee concerned, she merited the Company
discussing the matter with her and seeking to ascertain the
cause of her dissatisfaction. The Court finds the Company made
no effort in this regard.
In all the circumstances the Court considers the Company should
pay to the worker concerned a sum in the amount of 2 weeks pay.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92248 RECOMMENDATION NO LCR13703
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CASSIDYS GROUP STORE
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning alleged constructive dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company
in 1973, originally as a sales assistant. At the termination of
her employment, in 1991, she held the position of manageress.
When the worker returned to the Company in September, 1991 after
her maternity leave, she was transferred to a different branch.
During her first week in this branch a delivery of cartons was
made which the worker was expected to transport from the car
park to the store. This was something which she had never
before been expected to do. When a further delivery was made
later in the week, the worker refused to accept it and contacted
the Company in order to lodge a complaint. Subsequently an
arrangement was made whereby a porter was made available to
accept the next delivery. (This delivery arrived on the worker's
day off). However as no alternative arrangements had been made
by the Company for receipt of the next delivery, the worker
again refused to handle it. She then contacted the Company and
gave in her notice stating that she was not prepared to carry
cartons in from the car park. She handed in her resignation in
writing the following day as requested by the Company.
The matter was referred, by the worker, to the Labour Court on
12 March, 1992 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on Thursday 21st
May, 1992. Prior to the hearing the worker agreed to be bound
by the recommendation of the Court.
The Company did not attend the hearing but set out its case in a
letter which was furnished to the Court.
WORKERS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker gave her notice to the Company because she
had reached the end of her tether. Despite her continuous
complaints the Company failed to resolve the problem
concerning the transportation of deliveries made to the
store.
2. In all branches in which the worker had previously
worked, all cartons delivered were handled by a porter.
The worker stated that she had no objection to handling
cartons but she objected to the distance over which she was
expected to carry them from the carpark to the particular
store.
3. When she handed in her notice the worker explained her
reasons to the Company. The director to whom she spoke
promised to speak to her during the following week and the
worker felt that the problem might be resolved. However
the resignation was accepted and the Company did not speak
to the worker in connection with it.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker resigned from the Company of her own
volition. The Company cannot accept that it was guilty of
any action which warranted the worker handing in her
resignation and claiming constructive dismissal. If the
worker had felt that she had such a grievance she did not
raise it with the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court does not find grounds to uphold the claim of the
complainant that she was unfairly dismissed.
However, the Court considers that given the record and the
service of the employee concerned, she merited the Company
discussing the matter with her and seeking to ascertain the
cause of her dissatisfaction. The Court finds the Company made
no effort in this regard.
In all the circumstances the Court considers the Company should
pay to the worker concerned a sum in the amount of 2 weeks pay.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
7th July, 1992 ---------------------------------
A.O'S/M.H. Deputy Chairman