Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93647 Case Number: AD945 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BRENDELLA LIMITED - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 251/93.
Recommendation:
The Court is satisfied that the recommendation made by the Rights
Commissioner was appropriate in the circumstances of his hearing.
The employer, through his admitted unfamiliarity with the conduct
of the proceedings, assumed, incorrectly, that having written to
the Labour Relations Commission, it was not necessary for him to
be present or to be represented at the hearing.
This lack of familiarity with the procedures the Court finds
unacceptable and certainly not conducive to creating and
maintaining a climate of good industrial relations with the
workforce.
However, with the background information presented to the Court by
the employer at the appeal hearing, the Court is satisfied that
given the position of the Company at the time the decision was
made to implement lay-off, the claimant was not unjustly selected.
The Court, therefore, upholds the appeal of the Company.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93647 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD594
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BRENDELLA LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC
251/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has worked with the Company since 1973
as a clerk/receptionist. She left the Company for 2 years, from
1976 to 1978.
In March, 1993 the staff in the Company were given notice of
impending layoffs / short time. On 8th April, 1993 the worker
concerned was laid off for 3 weeks, the first week of which was
holidays due to her. She was due to return on 5th May, 1993 on a
3-day week basis. The worker concerned claims she was unfairly
laid off for the 2 weeks. The Company states that, as there was a
fall-off in orders, there was no work for the worker concerned.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioners Service and a
hearing took place on 22nd September, 1993. The Rights
Commissioners' recommendation issued as follows:
"In the light of the above my Recommendation is that the
Company should pay to the worker the sum of #166.42 net
representing the net losses sustained by her over the two
weeks of lay off (the first week of lay off was taken as
holiday)".
(The worker was named in the recommendation.)
The recommendation was appealed by the Company to the Labour Court
on 10th November, 1993 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the appeal on 12th
January, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned has been with the Company since
1973. She left in 1976 but was asked by the Company to
return in 1978.
2. The worker was laid off in the past only when all
workers in the Company were let go, due to lack of work. In
this instance the worker was let go and her duties were
carried out by another member of staff who had not been laid
off. The worker concerned was unjustly selected for lay off.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All members of staff were informed of impending lay-offs
/ short time. There was virtually no work left for the
worker when she was laid off on 8th April, 1993.
2. The worker concerned claims that another employee did
her duties when she was laid off. This is not true. The
other employee had been on sick leave for 2 weeks and had
arrears of work to catch up on. Were it not for this the
other employee would also have been laid off.
3. The Company divided the available work as fairly as
possible. The worker concerned was not treated differently
to any of the workers who were laid off temporarily.
DECISION:
The Court is satisfied that the recommendation made by the Rights
Commissioner was appropriate in the circumstances of his hearing.
The employer, through his admitted unfamiliarity with the conduct
of the proceedings, assumed, incorrectly, that having written to
the Labour Relations Commission, it was not necessary for him to
be present or to be represented at the hearing.
This lack of familiarity with the procedures the Court finds
unacceptable and certainly not conducive to creating and
maintaining a climate of good industrial relations with the
workforce.
However, with the background information presented to the Court by
the employer at the appeal hearing, the Court is satisfied that
given the position of the Company at the time the decision was
made to implement lay-off, the claimant was not unjustly selected.
The Court, therefore, upholds the appeal of the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th February, 1994. Tom McGrath
C.O'N./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman