Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9665 Case Number: AD9629 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ARTANE/BEAUMONT RECREATION CENTRE - and - A WORKER;MANDATE |
Appeal by Artane/Beaumont Recreation Centre against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC326/95.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions and examined the evidence
presented, some of which was not available to the Rights
Commissioner, the Court is satisfied that the Centre's appeal is
well founded and accordingly is upheld.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9665 APPEAL DECISION NO AD2996
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ARTANE/BEAUMONT RECREATION CENTRE
and
A WORKER
(Represented by MANDATE)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by Artane/Beaumont Recreation Centre against Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation BC326/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Artane/Beaumont Recreation Centre (Centre) was opened
in September, 1986. The cost of building the Centre was
funded by family life membership fees, state grants and
by borrowings. A management team was elected to run the
Centre on a day to day basis.
2. The Centre has three bars which are staffed by three
full-time and four part-time staff. The claimant is one
of the part-time staff. All bar staff are paid trade
union rates.
3. The Union claims that its member has been discriminated
against by the Centre on the following basis:-
(1) her hours have been cut, while the hours of
male staff have remained unaffected,
(2) the Centre is in breach of the pro-rata
agreement covering the licensed trade,
(3) "double jobbers" (2) were engaged at the
expense of the claimant.
4. The Centre rejects the Union's claim that its member was
discriminated against and states that it must operate the
Centre on a sound financial footing.
5. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner. The
Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on the 5th
January, 1996 and in his recommendation BC326/95
recommended:-
(a) Either restore the worker's hours immediately
back to 25/30 per week and pay her compensation
of £800.
(b) Continue with the claimant working 3 shifts per
week and pay her compensation of £3,600.
The Centre appealed the recommendation on 6th February,
1996. The Court heard the appeal on 20th March, 1996
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant was unfairly treated by the Centre when it
changed her contract of employment.
2. The worker had established a contract of employment by
custom and practice over the previous six years.
3. Management has not treated the worker equitably in the
distribution of work.
4. Four new bar staff were recruited although the claimant
is available for full-time work.
5. No male member of staff has suffered any reduction in
their working hours.
CENTRE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Centre has no negotiating agreement with the Union.
2. Management has spoken to the worker on numerous occasions
regarding her work performance.
3. The worker's hours of employment were reduced but this
was due to full-time staff returning to work after
illness.
4. Management have the right to determine the level of staff
required to run the Centre at any particular time, in line
with the demands of business.
5. The Centre rejects any allegations of discriminatory
policies or practices towards any of its employees
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions and examined the evidence
presented, some of which was not available to the Rights
Commissioner, the Court is satisfied that the Centre's appeal is
well founded and accordingly is upheld.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd April, 1996 Evelyn Owens
L.W./U.S. --------------
Chairman