Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93583 Case Number: AD93103 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MURRAY'S PHARMACY - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW260/93.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is
of the view that the payment (#200) recommended by the Rights
Commissioner should be made by the Company on an ex gratia basis
and inclusive of holiday pay.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93583 APPEAL DECISION NO AD10393
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MURRAY'S PHARMACY
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW260/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
10th May, 1993. Her employment was temporary and for a period of
approximately 3 months. The worker's employment was terminated on
20th July, 1993. The Company claims that the worker's illness
made her unsuitable for employment in the Pharmacy.
3. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 11th October, 1993 the
Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"I recommend that Mr Murray offers and the worker accepts the
sum of #200 in settlement of this dispute and any matters
arising out of the period of employment".
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the
Company to the Labour Court on 15th October, 1993. The Labour
Court heard the appeal on 15th November, 1993. Prior to the
Court hearing the worker informed the Court that she would be
unable to attend at the hearing due to work commitments.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's employment was temporary and for a maximum
period of 3 months She was employed for the summer period to
replace permanent staff on holiday.
2. The Rights Commissioner states that the worker seeks
compensation for the period "when she might reasonably have
been employed". The worker had no basis for any such
expectation. She was told at the outset that her employment
would be terminated when her services were no longer required.
She fully understood this and accepted it.
3. The person who reported the worker's illness on 19th and
20th July, 1993 was unable to indicate to management the
likely duration of her absence. On 20th July, 1993, the
worker informed management that her doctor had advised her to
take a further week off work. This was unacceptable to
management and her employment was terminated.
4. The worker's ailment rendered her unsuitable for the job
she had undertaken - namely relief work. This is further
borne out by her doctor's recommendation of a further week's
absence. Even if the worker had returned to work in defiance
of medical opinion it would be unacceptable to allow a member
of staff to deal with the public while suffering from
recurrent migraine.
5. The location of the Company's premises and the nature of
the work requires for security reasons, a large number of
personnel to be present at all times. It is precisely for
this reason that the Company employs temporary staff. Under
the circumstances the Company contend that it has no liability
to the worker concerned.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is
of the view that the payment (#200) recommended by the Rights
Commissioner should be made by the Company on an ex gratia basis
and inclusive of holiday pay.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
9th December, 1993 ----------------
F.B./U.S. Chairman