Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94169 Case Number: AD9435 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BARRY'S HOTEL - and - MANDATE |
Appeal by the Hotel against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 450/93.
Recommendation:
The Court, on the basis of the submissions made by the parties,
decides that the appeal be rejected and the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation upheld.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94169 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3594
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
BARRY'S HOTEL
AND
MANDATE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Hotel against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC 450/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed by the Hotel as a
cleaner for the past nine years. She has been out of work
through illness since 31st August, 1993. The Union claimed
that the worker was entitled to sick pay in accordance with
the Licensed Vintners Sick Pay Scheme. Management rejected
the claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation. On the 9th February,
1994, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as
follows:-
" In the light of the above I must uphold the claim by the
Trade Union. I therefore, recommend that Barry's Hotel
should apply the terms of the Trade Sick Pay Scheme to
the worker i.e. 6 weeks half pay and 6 weeks quarter
pay."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
On the 16th March, 1994, the Company appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal
on the 3rd May, 1994.
HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Hotel was obliged to recruit a replacement worker
and pay that worker's wages. The worker concerned has
still not returned to work.
2. There was no contractual agreement with the worker or
her Union to pay her sick pay while absent from work due
to illness. The sick pay scheme only covers bar staff.
3. There is no legal obligation on the Company to make such
payments to the worker concerned.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned is covered by the Licensed Vintners
Sick Pay Scheme. In accordance with the scheme she
furnished her Employer with the appropriate sickness
certificates during the period of her illness, entitling
her to benefit under the scheme, i.e., six weeks' half
pay, and six weeks' quarter pay.
2. The Company has paid other members of staff, when out of
work through illness, the appropriate sickness benefit.
Its refusal to pay the worker concerned is in breach of
the Agreement.
DECISION:
The Court, on the basis of the submissions made by the parties,
decides that the appeal be rejected and the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation upheld.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th May, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman