Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94397 Case Number: AD9465 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WOODSTOCK CAFE - and - A WORKER |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC 92/94 regarding unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, and the
additional evidence given at the hearing, the Court is of the view
that, taking all the circumstances of the case into account, the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation is reasonable and should be
upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94397 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6594
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
WOODSTOCK CAFE
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC 92/94
regarding unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker claims that she was employed by the Company since
September, 1993. The Company maintains that she worked a
trial day in October, 1993, two days in November, 1993, and
seven days during the Christmas period in 1993. She became a
regular part-time worker at the cafe on 24th January, 1994.
The worker was let go by the Company on 18th March, 1994.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a
hearing took place on 6th July, 1994. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation follows:-
"In the light of the above I must uphold the claim by the
claimant. I do not recommend reinstatement. My
recommendation is that Woodstock Cafe should pay to the
claimant the sum of #260. This figure is made up of #60
in lieu of holiday pay and #200 by way of compensation."
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on
the 26th July, 1994, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on
20th September, 1994 (the earliest date suitable to the
parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On 18th March, 1994, the worker asked the Company
manager for bank holiday (St. Patricks Day) pay to be
included in her wages. The worker was informed that the
Company did not pay extra for working bank holidays.
When the worker disputed this with the manager, she was
informed that she was being let go. The worker was
given no valid reason for the dismissal.
2. The worker was always co-operative and hard-working
during her time with the Company. This is acknowledged
by the Company. She was treated in an insensitive
manner by the manager, which caused her mental and
physical distress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is run on a tight budget. The worker was
employed to deal with the morning breakfast business.
During February and March, 1994, the breakfast business
suffered a significant fall off. The Company had no
choice but to let the worker go. The worker was
informed, prior to 18th March, 1994, of the possibility
of her being let go. It was not a sudden decision.
2. The Company does not give workers double time for bank
holiday work. It gives them a day off in lieu. The
worker has not been replaced.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, and the
additional evidence given at the hearing, the Court is of the view
that, taking all the circumstances of the case into account, the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation is reasonable and should be
upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th October, 1994 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./D.T. ____________
Chairman