Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92784 Case Number: LCR13970 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: WATERFRONT RESTAURANT - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made at the hearing the
Court is of the opinion that the worker concerned was dismissed by
reason of downturn in trade. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92784 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13970
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WATERFRONT RESTAURANT
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Waterfront Restaurant is situated in Skerries, Co. Dublin.
It provides meals for customers throughout the day, with peak
trading during lunch, afternoon tea and dinner.
3. The worker was employed on a casual basis in January, 1991.
She worked Saturdays and Sundays and was paid #2.50 per hour which
increased to #2.95 per hour from 16th October, 1991. She was
dismissed from her employment on 17th November, 1991. The reason
given for her dismissal was due to a downturn in business.
4. The worker considered her dismissal to be unfair, as an
employee with less service was retained. The Union referred the
dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. The Company declined an invitation to attend a
Rights Commissioner's investigation. The Union referred the
dispute to the Labour Relations Commission and the Company also
declined an invitation to attend a conciliation conference. The
Union 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 15th February, 1993. The Union agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. A worker with less service was retained when the worker
concerned was dismissed.
2. Shortly before the worker's dismissal she questioned the
rates payable for Sunday working and sought what she
considered to be fair payment. Also, on 20th October, 1992 an
incident occurred between the Employer and the worker's sister
(who is also an employee). The worker believes that these are
the main reasons for her dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company's business is seasonal by its nature and
therefore a level of flexibility in staffing levels is
required.
2. The Company deals with seasonal peaks by employing
additional staff to provide cover for specific periods. When
business declines staff are let go. In the worker's case her
service was short and preference was given to a staff member
with longer service.
3. The particular worker referred to by the worker concerned
is employed in a full-time capacity and is able to provide a
better level of flexibility.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions made at the hearing the
Court is of the opinion that the worker concerned was dismissed by
reason of downturn in trade. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
22nd February, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.