Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9494 Case Number: AD9425 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CAPTAIN CHUCKLES - and - A WORKER;CROWLEY, MILLER, SOLICITORS |
Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 317/93.
Recommendation:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties
the Court does not find grounds to uphold the appeal of the
Company and accordingly rejects it and confirms the Recommendation
of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9494 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2594
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CAPTAIN CHUCKLES
(REPRESENTED BY MALONE AND MARTIN, SOLICITORS)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY CROWLEY, MILLER, SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC 317/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. Captain Chuckles is a childrens' play centre which was opened
in December, 1992. The worker commenced employment as manageress
of the centre on the 19th January, 1993. She was dismissed on the
16th July, 1993. The worker claimed that her dismissal was
unfair. The Company rejected the claim. The dispute was referred
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On
the 20th December, 1993, the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:
"In the light of the above I must hold that the worker was
unfairly dismissed from her employment on the date in
question. I do not recommend reinstatement.
My recommendation is that Captain Chuckles should pay to the
worker the sum of #3,000 and that this be accepted by her in
full and final settlement of all claims on the employer in
relation to her employment and its termination".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
Subsequently both parties appealed the Recommendation to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 23rd March, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed on a one year contract, given to
her verbally by the Employer. The play centre's name was
changed from Caspers to Captain Chuckles on her advice. She
advised Management that the venture would take approximately
six months to become viable and a good advertising budget was
essential. The advertising budget was only partially put in
place. (Details supplied to the Court). The worker
endeavoured to get as many customers (from her former
employment) as possible to visit the play centre. She
visited pre-schools and primary schools distributing
literature and small promotional items. She advised
Management that it was essential that Captain Chuckles be
advertised locally and on radio. This did not happen. Her
suggestions were rejected by Management.
2. During the course of the worker's employment turnover at
the play centre was substantially increased, yet on the 14th
July, 1993, Management advised the worker that she was to be
dismissed. She was told that the operation was to close and
that other staff would be advised. This did not happen and a
new manageress was appointed. The worker concerned has been
treated in a most unfair manner. She gave up a full-time
position (at another play centre) to take up employment at
Captain Chuckles. During her employment she used her
expertise, knowledge and organisational skills to promote the
Company, yet she was dismissed in an unfair and arbitrary
fashion.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker approached the Company and applied for the
unadvertised position of manager of the play centre.
Following a number of meetings with Management she was
appointed to the position on the basis that she would
significantly increase weekly turnover. Her appointment was
on a month to month basis. She was employed on the basis
that she would achieve the increased figures she represented
to the Company at interview and thus financially justify her
appointment.
2. During the period of her employment turnover at the play
centre did not increase. (Details supplied to the Court).
There was in effect a down-turn in trade and Management was
left with no alternative but to terminate the worker's
employment. She was paid her statutory entitlements plus
additional monies. She was advised that her employment was
being terminated due to a down-turn in trade. Management did
not state that the Company was closing down. The worker was
treated in a fair and reasonable manner.
DECISION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties
the Court does not find grounds to uphold the appeal of the
Company and accordingly rejects it and confirms the Recommendation
of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th April, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman