Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92136 Case Number: LCR13638 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HUGH BOGGAN MOTORS LTD - and - A WORKER |
Dispute regarding the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
While it recognises that considerable flexibility is required of
staff to meet the long opening hours of the shop, the Court
considers that a little more effort and good-will from all the
parties concerned in this issue might well have resulted in an
amicable solution.
Having regard to all the circumstances put forward at the hearing
in both the written submissions and the oral evidence, the Court
recommends that the Company furnish the claimant with a suitable
employment reference and pay her the sum of #200 in full and final
settlement of her claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92136 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13638
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: HUGH BOGGAN MOTORS LTD
(Represented by the Society of the Irish Motor Industry)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute regarding the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed by the Company on 18th August,
1991, as a shop assistant in the grocery shop. The shop is
open from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., 7 days a week. The Company
employs 4 workers on a shift basis. The worker was employed
to work 18 hours per week as follows:-
Sunday - 3 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Tuesday - 8.30 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Friday - 8.30 a.m. to 3 p.m.
2. Difficulties arose in the employment relationship after
3 weeks, when the worker was asked to do an additional 4 hours
evening shift every Thursday. Following negotiations, the
worker agreed to do the extra shift every fortnight. The
worker, on 26th September, informed the Company that she was
unable to continue the Thursday shift because of changed
family commitments (details supplied). The Thursday shift was
then covered by other workers.
3. In January, 1992 discussions were held regarding the
revision of the shift rota for all workers. It was not
possible for the Company and the worker to agree on a revised
rota and the worker claims that she was dismissed on Wednesday
15th January, 1992. The worker referred the dispute to the
Labour Court under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969, by letter dated 20th February, 1992. A Labour Court
investigation took place in Wexford on 7th April, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker commenced employment with the Company on 18th
August, 1991. She agreed to work 18 hours per week. The
worker informed the Company that it would be difficult for her
to work more hours because of her family commitments The
worker was happy to help out the Company when a difficulty
arose regarding cover for the Thursday evening shift. After a
number of weeks working the Thursday evening shift, she found
that she could not continue as her husband changed his job and
was working permanently on night work.
2. Since joining the Company, the worker has never felt
accepted by the employer, who questioned her integrity,
critised her appearance and made her working life difficult
(details supplied). The worker has acted properly throughout
her employment with the Company. When she was unable to work
on the Thursday shift, she proposed a number of alternatives
to solve the problem. The employer refused to consider any of
them. The Company offered the worker a stand-by position and
finally dismissd her. The worker was never informed that she
was on probation or that the hours offered to her were liable
to change.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker joined the Company she was informed that
she was on 6 months probation, that the position would require
her to work any available shifts and that shifts were liable
to change periodically. She was offered 3 shifts which were
surplus to the shifts already allocated to existing workers
under the last shift rota. Difficulties arose regarding the
rota (details supplied) and the worker was asked to undertake
a further shift, which, after negotiations, she agreed to work
once a fortnight. Shortly afterwards the worker refused to do
the extra shift and it had to be covered by other workers.
2. The worker was the most junior in the Company. The
Company sought to recruit another worker for the extra shift.
This proved impossible and the Company was forced to offer
more hours to recruit someone for a more satisfactory rota.
The worker refused the offer of standby work or to change her
shifts as required by the Company. On 15th January, 1992 the
worker resigned (details supplied). The Worker was not
dismissed, she left her employment freely without any pressure
being exerted upon her to do so by her employer.
RECOMMENDATION:
While it recognises that considerable flexibility is required of
staff to meet the long opening hours of the shop, the Court
considers that a little more effort and good-will from all the
parties concerned in this issue might well have resulted in an
amicable solution.
Having regard to all the circumstances put forward at the hearing
in both the written submissions and the oral evidence, the Court
recommends that the Company furnish the claimant with a suitable
employment reference and pay her the sum of #200 in full and final
settlement of her claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
29th April, 1992 ----------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.