Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92782 Case Number: AD935 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: THE BEAUFIELD MEWS - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties is
of the opinion that management should have shown more
consideration to the claimant when they engaged a waitress to
replace her. The Court, therefore, recommends that the Management
pay four days pay in full and final settlement of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92782 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD593
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: THE BEAUFIELD MEWS
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was initially employed by the Company on a casual
basis as a waitress in late 1991. In March, 1992 the worker gave
her P.45 to the Company. She worked an average of two days a week
up to 19th June, 1992. The worker went on holidays from 21st
June, 1992 to 5th July, 1992. She had expected to return to work
on 10th July, 1992. She was not recalled and subsequently
contacted her employer on a number of occasions by telephone.
Following a telephone call in September, 1992 the Company
forwarded the worker's P.45 to her.
3. The worker lodged a claim for unfair dismissal. The Company
rejected the claim. The worker then referred the dispute to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 26th January, 1993. The worker agreed to be
bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was informed, on the second occasion she
contacted the Company, that a replacement worker had been
hired while she was on holidays and that her P.45 would be
sent to her.
2. The worker was given no indication or reason for the
termination of her employment.
3. As the employer held on to the worker's P.45 she had a
reasonable expectation of being recalled. The delay in
forwarding the P.45 resulted in the worker losing work in
other places.
4. When the worker was employed in March, 1992 she was
guaranteed at least one night's work a week. Depending on
business, she would work more than one night a week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker was employed on an "on-call" basis. She would
be called in when work was available.
2. The nature of the business is such that at times staff
requirements are not always known in advance. Accordingly the
Company employs a number of workers who can take up employment
at short notice on an "on-call" basis.
3. The worker was not unfairly dismissed. There was no work
available.
4. The worker was sent her P.45 at her own request. The
Company presumed she had found work elsewhere.
DECISION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties is
of the opinion that management should have shown more
consideration to the claimant when they engaged a waitress to
replace her. The Court, therefore, recommends that the Management
pay four days pay in full and final settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
8th February, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.