Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94355 Case Number: AD9462 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CONRAD HOTEL - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC52/94.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties in
this appeal, is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is reasonable.
The Court, therefore, decides that the appeal must fail.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94355 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6294
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CONRAD HOTEL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
BC52/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed as a catering assistant since
1989 - working from 10.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. In August, 1991
she requested additional duties as a banqueting cashier.
This involved working evenings/nights and week-ends. In
June, 1992, the worker obtained a parking space from the
Hotel at a cost of #30 per month. In January, 1994, the
worker was informed by the Hotel that, due to lack of parking
space, her parking facility would be withdrawn. The worker
was given a month's notice to find alternate parking.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and a
hearing took place on 16th June, 1994. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation follows:-
"In the light of the above I must hold that the employer
did not act unfairly or unreasonably in withdrawing this
facility from the worker. I recommend accordingly."
(The worker was named in the above recommendation).
The recommendation was appealed by the Union to the Labour
Court on 4th July, 1994 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing was held on 12th
September, 1994 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The unilateral withdrawl of the parking space has
resulted in a loss of earnings for the worker, as she
can no longer work in the banqueting department at
night. Her loss to date is approximately #2,850.
2. Other members of staff, of a similar grade to the
worker, still have use of parking facilities in the
Hotel. This is a cause of embarrassment to the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The parking facility provided for the worker was of a
commercial nature. The car park is small and is
intended for the use of patrons. Business has grown
considerably over the past few years and only management
now has access to parking facilities in the Hotel.
2. The Hotel made alternative arrangements for the worker
and helped her find parking space near the Hotel. The
worker was given time off from work to move her car to
the front of the Hotel each evening.
3. The worker had managed to work for a year in the
banqueting department before obtaining parking space in
the Hotel. She was able to make alternative parking
arrangements during this time.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties in
this appeal, is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is reasonable.
The Court, therefore, decides that the appeal must fail.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd September, 1994 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./D.T. ____________
Chairman