Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93255 Case Number: LCR14122 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MOLLY BLOOMS - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the claimant was unfairly treated in that she
was asked to work inappropriate hours.
The Court accordingly is of the view that she was constructively
dismissed and recommends that she be paid a sum of #200 as
compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93255 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14122
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MOLLY BLOOMS
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the retailing of flowers and has
outlets in the Royal Hibernian Way, in the Merrion Centre and in
Bray. Its staff of 9 comprises 3 managers, 3 qualified florists
and three apprentice florists. The worker was employed by the
Company on the 13th of April, 1992 as a first-year apprentice.
In early December, 1992, a roster was prepared by the Company
covering the six weeks to January the 9th, 1993. Following a
dispute over the implementation of the new roster, the worker was
dismissed on the 5th of December, 1992. She claims that her
dismissal was unfair on the grounds that, as a 17-year old she was
expected to work hours that are in contravention of the Protection
of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977. The Company contends
that the worker left her employment of her own accord. The worker
referred the dispute to the Rights Commissioner service of the
Labour Relations Commission but the Company was not prepared to
attend a Rights Commissioner's hearing.
The worker then referred the dispute to the Labour Court in
accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 21st of June,
1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The new roster required that the worker work three 9 a.m.
- 9 p.m. shifts plus two 12 p.m.- 9 p.m. shifts per week in
the Merrion Centre Branch. She was prepared to work these
hours in the Royal Hibernian Way branch but due to the extra
travelling would have found it impossible to work these hours
in the Merrion Centre.
2. The number of hours per week that the worker was required
to work is in excess of the maximum stipulated by the
Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1977.
3. The Company was not prepared to pay overtime pay for
overtime hours worked. This is also in contravention of the
1977 Act.
4. The worker never intimated to the Company that she wished
to leave her employment. Following phone-calls with her
employer on the 5th of December, 1992, in which she clearly
expressed her wish to retain her job she was informed by the
Company that she was "sacked".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Although the worker claimed that it was impossible for her
to work the duties required by the new roster, other workers
were able to do so successfully.
2. The duties required by the roster complied with the terms
of employment set out in the Company's letter of appointment
to the worker dated the 8th of April, 1992.
3. From telephone conversations on the 5th of February, 1992,
the Company is clear in its understanding that the worker left
her job of her own free will. She was informed that she was
"sacked" only because it became critical for the conversation
to be brought to a speedy end as two Company telephone lines
had been blocked for over an hour.
4. The dismissal is not unfair, as the worker refused to work
in accordance with her contract.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the claimant was unfairly treated in that she
was asked to work inappropriate hours.
The Court accordingly is of the view that she was constructively
dismissed and recommends that she be paid a sum of #200 as
compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
25th June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.