FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : EUROSPAR (REPRESENTED BY DAS GROUP) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Discrimination & Constructive Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Worker that she was constructively dismissed. The Worker was an employee of the Company from October, 2005 to March, 2009. In February, 2009 the Worker was certified sick for one week. On her return to work, she was informed that her hours of work would be changed as there was no longer a need for someone to cover her old hours. The Worker's hours changed from 37 hours per week to 20 hours per week and she was rostered for hours that were unsuitable to her personal circumstances. It is the Worker's argument that she was discriminated against and left with no option but to leave her employment. The Company indicated to the Court by way of a letter that they would not be attending the hearing.
On the 26th August, 2009 the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th November, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Worker was the longest serving among the 10 staff employed in her area. She was the only person selected to reduce her working hours. Other workers were receiving overtime.
2 The Worker's medical condition has never interfered with her ability to do her job. The Worker believes that the Company, by using her condition as an excuse to cut her hours, are discriminating against her.
3 The Worker offered to work alternative hours but the Company would not accommodate her.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company did not attend the Court hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
The complaint before the Court was brought by the worker under Section 20 (i) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 concerning a claim of constructive dismissal. It is regrettable that the employer failed to attend the hearing to investigate the worker’s claim and that it did not furnish the Court with a written statement setting out its position.
In all the circumstances of the case, the Court finds in favour of the worker’s claim that she had no alternative but to terminate her employment in circumstances where the employer substantially reduced her working hours and changed the timing of her hours thereby requiring her to incur extra childcare costs.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the employer should pay compensation to the worker in the amount of €3000.00, within four weeks of the date of this Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th November, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.