Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD91571
Case Number: AD91112
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: MULTI-BITE - and - A. WORKER
|
Subject:
Appeal by a worker against a Rights Commissioners Recommendation No.BC238/91 concerning alleged unfair treatment.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submission from the parties the Court is
of the view that the Rights Commissioners Recommendation is not
unreasonable in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91571 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD11291
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MULTI-BITE
and
A. WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against a Rights Commissioners
Recommendation No.BC238/91 concerning alleged unfair treatment.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed by the Company from January to
June 1991. The Company has two operations, a shop in
Pearse Street and a canteen in the Language Centre of
Ireland (for which the Employer holds the franchise). The
worker initially worked in the shop but subsequently her
duties were spread over the two premises - 3½ hours a day
were spent in the shop - 1½ in the morning and 2 in the
evening. The remaining 7½ hours were spent in the Language
Centre. The worker's duties in the canteen involved the
preparation of snacks and light lunches, the cleaning of
the canteen and all cash transactions. The worker had a
break of 15-20 minutes every afternoon and occasionally
joined some students for a game of cards during the break.
The principal of the Language Centre complained to the
employer about the unsatisfactory state in which the
canteen was being maintained and stated that if there was
not an improvement in standards the franchise could be
lost. The employer claims that he was left with no option
but to transfer the worker from the canteen back to the
shop. He was unable to offer her a full time position as
he could not afford to sustain both himself and 2 other
people in the shop. Following her transfer the worker was
working reduced hours and subsequently receiving reduced
wages.
The worker referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. A Right's Commissioner's
hearing took place on 27th August, 1991 and the following
Recommendation issued on 26th September, 1991.
"RECOMMENDATION:
In the light of the above I recommend that the employer
trading as Multi-Bite should pay to the worker the sum
of £200 and that this be accepted by her in full and
final settlement of this claim on the Company".
(The worker and the employer were named in the
Recommendation.)
The Rights Commissioners Recommendation was appealed to the
Labour Court by the worker under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court investigation took place on
27th November, 1991.
WORKERS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The canteen area was maintained in a clean and tidy
manner at all times. The worker cannot see any reason as
to why the Principal had any cause for complaint. The
worker admitted that she played cards with the students but
this was only durng her 15-20 minute break. This did not
in any way affect the running of the canteen.
3. 2. As her status decreased from fulltime to part-time the
worker has been discriminated against. The worker was
losing out financilly and accordingly after one week of
working her reduced hours she left the employment and
commenced a new job. The new position is also part-time.
The amount awarded to her by the Rights Commissioner is not
sufficient to compensate for the reduction in her wages.
3. 3. The worker did not inform the employer that she was
dissatisfied with the new arrangements as she had committed
herself to a holiday for which she had already half paid.
She had no option but to accept the change.
EMPLOYERS ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In order to safeguard the franchise which he holds for
the canteen the employer was obliged to respect the
Principal's wishes and transfer the worker from the
canteen. He had no option but to assign her to duties in
the shop.
4. 2. The only position which the employer could afford to
offer the worker was a part-time one. At no stage did the
worker complain to him about the new arrangements. The
employer assumed that these were acceptable to the worker
as she had often previously stated that her 55 hour working
was very tiring.
DECISION:
Having considered the submission from the parties the Court is
of the view that the Rights Commissioners Recommendation is not
unreasonable in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________
19th, December, 1991
A.N.S./N.M. Deputy Chairman