Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93686
Case Number: AD944
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: OCCASSIONS HAIRSTYLING - and - A WORKER;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
|
Subject:
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW.334/93.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties, does not find grounds to amend the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
The Court, therefore, upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal of the employer.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93686 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD494
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: OCCASSIONS HAIRSTYLING
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
CW.334/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company on a
full-time basis on 28th November, 1992. On 1st May, 1993 the
worker became part time, working on Thursdays and Saturdays. A
dispute arose on 20th September, 1993 when the Company informed
the worker that there would only be sufficient work for her for
one day a week, on Saturdays. The Company states that the worker
would not accept the reduced working hours and asked for her P45,
a week's wages and one week's wages in lieu of notice.
The worker concerned claims that on 20th September, 1993 she was
informed by the Company that she was being made redundant with
effect from 23rd September, 1993. The Company denies that the
worker was dismissed or made redundant.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioners Service and a
hearing took place on 15th November, 1993. The Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation issued as follows:
"I recommend that the Company offers and the worker accepts
the sum of #100 and an appropriate reference in full and
final settlement of this dispute".
(The Company and the worker were named in the
recommendation).
The recommendation was appealed by the Company to the Labour Court
on 15th November, 1993 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 12th
January, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was unfairly dismissed from her job. She
worked Monday 20th September in lieu of Saturday 25th,
September, 1993 as she was due to take holidays on that
weekend. She is entitled to a weeks wages which she did not
receive. The worker was given no reason for dismissal and
was unfairly treated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was slow at her job and as a result
her clientele diminished. It was necessary to reduce her
work days to Saturday only. The worker left the job
voluntarily. She was not dismissed. The worker is not due
one extra weeks wages as she had not worked during the week
in which she is claiming payment.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties, does not find grounds to amend the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
The Court, therefore, upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal of the employer.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th January, 1994. Tom McGrath
C.O'N./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman