FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GAIETY CINEMA SLIGO (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR584/99CW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established as a one-screen cinema in 1935. It developed over the years into a 4-screen cinema before it closed for major renovations in June, 1997. It re-opened as a new cinema complex, in 1998, and now has 7 screens and employs a staff of 6 permanent and 19 part-time workers. As a result of the 1997 closure, 3 employees accepted redundancy, and the remainder were offered positions in the new complex.
The dispute concerns one worker who commenced employment with the Company, on a part-time basis, in 1991. Following the re-opening of the cinema, a dispute arose regarding proposed changes to the hours of the worker, who worked Monday to Thursday and from whom the Company sought greater flexibility by extending her roster to include week-end work. The dispute was the subject of investigation by a Rights Commissioner who found there was no requirement on the worker to work weekends, unless she so volunteered. He found, further, that the Company was, in effect, saying that the worker's post was redundant, and he considered a redundancy payment appropriate.
The Rights Commissioner recommended that the Company offer the worker a lump-sum of £800, in settlement of the dispute. The recommendation was appealed to the Labour Court, by the Union, on the 3rd December, 1999, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 13th July, 2000, the earliest date convenient to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While the Union accepts the Rights Commissioner's view that the claimant's post was being made redundant, the amount of £800, recommended as a resolution to the dispute, is insufficient when compared with the redundancy payment made to 2 colleagues of hers (details supplied to the Court).
2. The amount recommended should be in excess of £3,000 based on the additional service the worker had after the re-opening of the cinema, and due to the manner in which she was forced to leave her employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company concurs with the Rights Commissioner's finding that the worker's post is, in effect, redundant. The Company also accepts that the sum of £800 as recommended is reasonable. Had the worker opted for redundancy on the closure of the cinema, she would have received a sum of £1,148. Taking into account that she has already received a sum of £300 which was paid to all staff remaining in employment, the nett sum recommended is fair.
2. The Company has, at all times, been fair and reasonable with the employee in question. However, while the Company sought that she be flexible with regard to weekend work, she was willing to work only the hours of her choosing, a situation that arose as a result of her having secured other employment.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, is of the view that a lump sum of £1,200 would be appropriate in settlement of this case.
The Court, therefore, amends the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
25th July, 2000______________________
MK/MKChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.