INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1969
NAAS GOLF CLUB
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Alleged unfair dismissal
2. The worker commenced employment with the Club as a part-time bar person on the 30th of August, 2000, and was rostered for 20 hours per week. A new Bar Manager was appointed in November, 2000, to try and improve the running of the bar. The worker claims that the new Manager made life very difficult for her by varying her roster every week, either different hours or different days.
On the 15th of July, 2001, the worker was due to have a shift from 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. A barman who was due to take over at 2.00 p.m. called in sick following an accident and the worker had to stay on until 6.00 p.m. When the Manager arrived at 6.00 p.m. the worker admits that she "let fly" at him as she was tired and sore (the worker has arthritis in both feet). The worker went home and an hour later telephoned the Manager to say that she would never work for him again. The following day the worker telephoned the Manager to say that she wished to return to work but claims that he told her that he did not want her back and had given her job to someone else.
The worker believes that she was unfairly dismissed and referred her case to the Labour Court on the 8th of October, 2001, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of November, 2001. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
3. 1. The worker was never sure from week to week what her rostered hours of work would be (details supplied to the Court). She spoke to the new Manager every week in an effort to sort out the problem but he did not care. She often had to work more than the 4 hours per day for which she was employed.
2. The worker spoke to the Treasurer and the Secretary of the Club several times about her problems with the Manager but to no avail.
3. The worker loved her job and wished to return to it. There was never a complaint about her work and, in fact, she was often complimented about her professionalism.
4. 1. There was no dismissal involved in this case. The worker resigned of her own free will and later confirmed this to the Club's Honorary Secretary. She was abusive to the Manager in front of other staff. Despite this, he tried to dissuade her from resigning. The worker had also been abusive to the Manager on the 8th of June, 2001, when he had to speak to her about her work performance.
2. The Club's Treasurer told the worker on the 15th of July that she could take breaks as necessary and offered to drive her home. She declined the offer.
3. The worker had previously resigned from the Club but had changed her mind and been allowed to return.
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
It is clear that the claimant did not get on with the new Bar Manager and felt aggrieved about changes that he made in the rostering arrangements. The Court, while noting her position, accepts the employer's case that changes were required in the operation, and that the Manager was responsible for ensuring that the bar was run in a proper fashion.
The Court accepts that the claimant had a particularly arduous day on Sunday 15th of July, although this was as a result of events that no one could have foreseen.
However, having considered all of the issues in the case, the Court is satisfied that the claimant did resign after returning home on that day.
The Court finds that the claimant resigned from her post and , therefore, does not find merit in her claim that she was unfairly dismissed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th December, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.