FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MEADES BAR LIMITED T/A VICTORIA CAFÉ (REPRESENTED BY MR MICHAEL MC NAMARA B.L.,INSTRUCTED BY MC HALE MULDOON, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY FREDERICK V. GOSNELL, SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No ADJ-00004906.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute by the Claimant that she was unfairly dismissed by her employer.
- The Claimant said that she was awaiting contact from her employer to advise her of the hours of work in June 2016 and that her employer did not contact her. She received a text message from her employer on 2nd July indicating that her position as a waitress was terminated.
- The employer disputed the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case as the Claimant did not have the requisite service under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015 and submitted that it had no power to award compensation under the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 to 2004.
This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 11 July 2017 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-- “I find that based on the evidence, the respondent dismissed the claimant. I find that regards [sic] of the merits of the respondent arguments in relations to the claimant’s performance, I find that she had a right to fair procedures and the right to defend herself against any allegations and to get a fair hearing before the respondent made his decision to dismiss her.
I find that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and I award her 2 weeks’ pay as compensation.”
- “I find that based on the evidence, the respondent dismissed the claimant. I find that regards [sic] of the merits of the respondent arguments in relations to the claimant’s performance, I find that she had a right to fair procedures and the right to defend herself against any allegations and to get a fair hearing before the respondent made his decision to dismiss her.
The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 10 July 2017 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7 November 2017.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court concerns an appeal by the employer of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation which found in favour of the worker’s claim that she was unfairly dismissed by her employer. In his findings, the Adjudication Officer held that the worker’s employment was terminated in a manner which was not consistent with the principles of natural justice and fair procedures when her employment was terminated. The Adjudication Officer awarded her two weeks’ pay as compensation.
The Claimant worked as a bar waitress in the Respondent’s Wine Bar from 23rd October 2015 until 2nd July 2016. She worked 40 hours per week and was paid €400.00 per week. It is not disputed that she was not provided with a contract of employment or a statement setting out her terms and conditions of employment.
The Claimant stated that in mid-June 2016 she was awaiting contact from her employer to advise her of the hours of work for that week, however, her employer did not contact her. On Saturday 2nd July 2016, she received a text message from her employer indicated that her position as a waitress was terminated. In an email on 29th July 2016 he stated that he assumed that she would have no difficulty finding another job. She said that she had had no advance warning that her job was terminating and there was no disciplinary procedure in place.
The employer disputed the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case as the Claimant did not have the requisite service under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015 and submitted that it had no power to award compensation under the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 to 2004.
The Court notes that the appeal before the Court is under the Industrial Relations Acts and not the Unfair Dismissals Act.
The Court is satisfied that the matter complained of by the Claimant in this case comes within the meaning of ‘trade dispute’ for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946-2015. The meaning of “trade dispute” for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 to 2015 is to be found in section 3 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946: -
- ‘the expression “trade dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and workers or between workers and workers connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of the employment, or with the conditions of employment, of any person and includes any such dispute or difference between employers and workers where the employment has ceased’
- ‘(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.
(3) (a) Subject to the provisions of this section, a rights commissioner shall investigate any trade dispute referred to him under subsection (2) of this section and shall, unless before doing so the dispute is settled—
- (i) make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth his opinion on the merits of the dispute, and
- ‘(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.
In all the circumstances, the Court awards the Claimant the sum of €800.00 (two weeks’ pay) in compensation for the unfair dismissal which occurred.
The employer’s appeal is dismissed and Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation is upheld.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
27 November, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.