FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : THE ESTATE OF MAUREEN SCANLON (DECEASED) OF SCANLON'S JEWELLERS (REPRESENTED BY TOM MALLON B.L., INSTRUCTED BY GEORGE V MALONEY & CO, SOLICITORS) - AND - KATHLEEN QUINN DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no: ADJ-00004743.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim by Claimant that she was exposed to unacceptable working conditions.
- The Employer denied the working conditions were unacceptable.
- This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 21 February 2018 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- “1. I find that the complaint under the IR Act 1969 to be well founded. The Complainant agreed to take on a temporary post as a carer until alternative care arrangement were put in place. However the post lasted nearly a year during which the Complainant was exposed to unacceptable work conditions.
2. Under this heading I recommend that an award of compensation be made to the Complainant of €3000.00”.
- “1. I find that the complaint under the IR Act 1969 to be well founded. The Complainant agreed to take on a temporary post as a carer until alternative care arrangement were put in place. However the post lasted nearly a year during which the Complainant was exposed to unacceptable work conditions.
The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 29 March 2018 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3 October 2018.
DECISION:
Background to the Appeal
This is an appeal brought on behalf of the Estate of Maureen Scanlon (Deceased) (‘the Respondent’) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00004743/CA-00006636-005, dated 21 February 2018) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (‘the Act’). The Adjudication Officer held that the claim under the Act was well-founded and recommended Ms Kathleen Quinn (‘the Complainant’) receive compensation of €3,000.00. The Court heard the appeal on 3 October 2018 in Sligo in conjunction with the Respondent’s appeal under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (UD/18/54).
The Complaint
The Court found in its determination under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 that the Complainant was employment by the Respondent between 12 December 2014 and 29 October 2015. She was initially employed to work as a part-time shop assistant. However, when the late Mrs Scanlon returned home in mid-June 2015 from a period in hospital she required extensive care. The Complainant and Mrs Scanlon’s son, Mr Jimmy Scanlon, entered into an arrangement whereby the Complainant was engaged from mid-June 2015 under a separate arrangement to look after Mrs Scanlon in her apartment above the shop for two to three mornings per week and on Friday afternoons. Mr Scanlon told the Court that the Complainant was paid for this work from Mrs Scanlon’s personal resources rather than from the business.
The Complainant submits that during the period she was engaged to care for Mrs Scanlon, she was not given rest breaks, did not have regular access to rest-room facilities and was not furnished with a statement of terms and conditions.
Recommendation
Nothing was advanced before the Court on the appeal that forms a basis for setting aside the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer. That Recommendation, therefore, still stands.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CR______________________
12 November, 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.