Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD86872
Case Number: LCR10946
Section / Act: S20(1)
Parties: CHAPELIZOD NATIONAL SCHOOL - and - MRS. MARIE WALSH
|
Subject: Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal of 3 workers.
Recommendation: 5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not consider that the dismissal of the cleaners in this
instance was unfair. The Court does not therefore recommend in
favour of the workers' claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________ CD86872 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10946
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10946
Parties: CHAPELIZOD NATIONAL SCHOOL
and
THREE WORKERS
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal of 3 workers.
Background:
2. The workers concerned were employed by the Board of Management
of Chapelizod National School as cleaners. They worked part-time
five hours a week (one hour each day 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.) forty-two
weeks a year. There were four cleaners employed but one resigned
at the end of August, 1986. Before the end of the school holidays
the workers were approached by a member of the Board of Management
who informed them that because of complaints received regarding
the cleaning of the school it was proposed to alter their hours of
work (7 p.m. to 8 p.m. instead of 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.) to enable a
member of the Board to supervise the work. The proposed changes
were rejected by the workers. The workers did not present
themselves for work after these propoals were put to them. At the
end of the first week their wages were sent to them but were
returned. After a further 3 weeks the workers were informed of
the proposed changes in writing and that if they did not report
for work on the following week it would be presumed that they no
longer wished to work for the school. The workers referred their
case to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. The Board would not agree to a Rights
Commissioner's investigation. The workers then referred the
matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 for an investigation and recommendations.
They agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour
Court hearing was held on 12th December, 1986.
Workers' arguments:
3. (a) The workers' concerned have been employed by the school
for approximately six years. They had a good working
relationship with the previous Board and never received
any complaints. The reason the school was not cleaned
properly was because cleaning materials (polish) had
been removed by the Chairman of the Board of Management
and a polishing machine which had broken down was not
repaired or replaced despite requests from the workers
to have the machine seen to. Also the workers were not
allowed to clean the school during the school holidays
as had been the practice prior to the arrival of the
present Chairman. (The cleaners used to come in on one
day before the end of the school holidays, 4 times a
year, to clean and polish the school thoroughly).
(b) When the workers were first advised of the new
conditions of employment they were told that if they
did not work the revised hours they would be deemed to
have dismissed themselves. As the revised hours did
not suit the workers (domestic reasons) and therefore
they were not in a position to work them they assumed
they had been sacked when they didn't report for work.
(c) No specific complaints were brought to the attention of
the workers regarding the cleaniless of the school.
They were only spoken to in general terms regarding
their work performance.
Board's arguments:
4. (i) The Board had received a number of complaints from
teachers and parents regarding the state of the school.
The Board allowing for the facilities or lack of them
decided that the cleaning of the school was
unsatisfactory and considered dismissing the workers
concerned. However in an effort to be fair to the
workers it was decided to revise their hours of work to
allow a member of the Board to supervise the work.
(ii) The workers dismissed themselves by their failure to
report for duty.
(iii) The Board of Management felt strongly that the issue of
the cleaning of the school was something that had to be
faced even though the events referred to earlier were
unpleasant for all concerned. We feel strongly that
the option of the alternative hours of work was proper
in the circumstances. Given that this has been
rejected we respectfully ask the Court to find that the
Board of Management has acted in a reasonable and
responsible manner.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not consider that the dismissal of the cleaners in this
instance was unfair. The Court does not therefore recommend in
favour of the workers' claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
Deputy Chairman.
28th January, 1987.
M.D./J.C.