Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93237 Case Number: AD9330 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SHAMROCK LODGE - and - IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS', GROCERS' AND ALLIED;TRADES' ASSISTANTS |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. BC468/92 regarding holidays.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93237 DECISION NO. AD3093
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SHAMROCK LODGE
AND
IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS', GROCERS' AND ALLIED
TRADES' ASSISTANTS
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No.
BC468/92 regarding holidays.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker commenced employment on the 1st February,
1992 as a Senior Barman and in mid June, 1992 enquired about
taking his holidays. The worker requested and was allegedly
granted his holidays for the 30th August, 1992. On the
strength of this he booked a holiday.
2. In July, 1992 the Employer informed the worker that he
would have to take his holidays on 25th July, 1992. The
worker took his holidays on this date and incurred a cost for
cancelling his booked holiday. The matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner who investigated the dispute on the 4th
February, 1993. The Rights Commissioner in BC468/92
recommended that:
"Mr. John Dwyer, trading as Shamrock Lodge, Finglas,
Dublin, should reimburse Mr. Gilligan the extent of
#439.20."
The Employer objected to this and appealed the case to the
Labour Court on the 26th March, 1993. The Court investigated
the matter on the 20th April, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was given only 6 hours notice of the date for
his holidays.
2. If the appropriate notice had been given the worker
could have altered his holiday booking and avoided incurring
the penalty fee for cancelling.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was given notice on the 1st July, 1992 that
he would have to take holidays on the 25th July, 1992.
2. The architect in a letter dated 14th May, 1992,
indicated that the renovation work in the premises would
commence at the start of June and last for ten weeks.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th April, 1993 Evelyn Owens
P.O.C./M.H. ------------------------------------
Deputy Chairman