Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92503 Case Number: LCR13821 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SOCIETY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL - and - A WORKER |
Failure to be re-employed as a seasonal worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties. Given all the circumstances of this
case and the number of years over which the complainant has been
employed with the Sunshine House without any formal complaint
being made regarding her work the Court considers that her
treatment was most unfair. Should she require it the Court are
satisfied that she should be given a favourable reference in
respect of her period of employment. The Court recommends that
should the complainant wish to apply she should be offered a
suitable position in the 1993 season.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92503 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13821
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SOCIETY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL
SUNSHINE FUND
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Failure to be re-employed as a seasonal worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Sunshine Fund for the
summer seasons May/October in the period 1986/1991. In early 1992
the worker concerned applied for a position for the 1992 season.
The worker was called for interview. Several weeks later she was
informed that her application for employment had not been
successful. The worker claims that she was not re-employed
because she had made a number of complaints concerning her
supervisors. An offer to attend at a Rights Commissioner's
hearing was declined by the Sunshine Fund. The worker referred
the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation.. The Court hearing took place on 2nd
October, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. There were never any complaints from management in respect
of the worker's ability to do her work.
2. When interviewed in April, 1992, the worker when asked,
indicated her preference to work upstairs. This was normal
procedure. In expressing her preference to work upstairs the
worker never indicated any unwillingness on her part to
continue in the positions she held in previous years.
3. The manner in which the worker heard of her failure to
secure a position for 1992, left her distressed and
embarrassed. It was only after a phone call to the President
of the Sunshine Fund that she was officially informed.
4. The worker concerned has six years' experience in the job.
The explanation given to the worker that she had been replaced
by a worker with more experience is unacceptable.
5. The worker has been treated unfairly. She has a good work
record and on several occasions has taken part in charity
walks organised to raise money for Sunshine House.
SUNSHINE FUND'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker applied for employment at the beginning of each
season. Upon completion of a successful interview she was
offered a position in the Sunshine House for the summer season
May/October in the period 1986/1991.
2. At the end of the season each year the worker concerned
received her P45. She was aware that in order to secure
employment the following year it was necessary to re-apply at
the beginning of the season
3. There was never any contract or agreement that would
guarantee the worker employment the following season.
4. At the interview held in April, 1992 the worker was asked
her preference in respect of work. She stated that she would
prefer a position "upstairs". Failing that the worker opted
for part-time work in the kitchen.
5. Following the interview it became clear that there was no
position open to the worker "upstairs". Following
consultation with the new cook/manager it was decided to
create a full-time position in the kitchen, thus closing off
the worker's second option.
6. An interview process is the fairest way to give each
applicant equal opportunity to successfully obtain employment.
The worker was one of twenty-three applicants who applied for
a total of fourteen positions.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties. Given all the circumstances of this
case and the number of years over which the complainant has been
employed with the Sunshine House without any formal complaint
being made regarding her work the Court considers that her
treatment was most unfair. Should she require it the Court are
satisfied that she should be given a favourable reference in
respect of her period of employment. The Court recommends that
should the complainant wish to apply she should be offered a
suitable position in the 1993 season.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________
30th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.