Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD95516
Case Number: LCR14982
Section / Act: S20(1)
Parties: THE GRAND HOTEL
(Represented by GOODHILLS LIMITED)
- and -
A WORKER;TAYLOR AND BUCHALTER, SOLICITORS
|
Subject:
Reduction in working hours.
Recommendation:
There is a conflict of evidence as to what was agreed or stated
before the employee went on her 10 weeks leave.
It is clear that there are more hours available to this employee
if and when she is medically cleared for work.
The Court recommends that the parties agree a progressive increase
in her hours of work in line with the business requirements.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95516 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14982
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
THE GRAND HOTEL
(REPRESENTED BY GOODHILLS LIMITED)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY TAYLOR AND BUCHALTER, SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
Reduction in working hours.
BACKGROUND:
The worker has been employed by the Hotel as a dish washer
since August, 1990. In February, 1995, the worker advised
the Hotel that she had booked a 10 week holiday in
Australia, which included 7 weeks' leave at her own expense.
The Hotel claims that she was advised that another employee
would have to fill her position, and that when she returned
she would be offered employment on a part-time basis. The
worker claims that she was not informed of this at the time
and is seeking to be reinstated on a full-time basis.
The worker returned to work - two days per week - on 29th
June, 1995. The Department of Social Welfare was advised of
this on 10th July, 1995. On 27th July, 1995, the worker
claimed to have aggravated an old back injury in the course
of her duties, and subsequently claimed disability benefit.
On the 6th September, 1995, the worker referred the dispute
to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1),
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 14th November, 1995.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. It was not until she returned from her holidays that the
worker was informed that she would be put on 2-day working.
In order to allow her to claim social welfare, she wrote a
letter to the Hotel on 8th July, 1995, requesting 2 days'
continuous work per week. The worker wishes to return to
full-time work.
HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker was informed that taking 10 weeks' leave was not
acceptable. The Hotel did what it could to accommodate her.
she was informed that she would be placed on 2 day working
when she returned.
2. On the 8th July, 1995, the worker wrote to the Hotel stating
the following, "It would be better if you put me on two days
every week, then I can claim from Social Welfare if it's
continuous by the two-day week method". The Hotel agreed to
the request, although more hours would have been available to
the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
There is a conflict of evidence as to what was agreed or stated
before the employee went on her 10 weeks leave.
It is clear that there are more hours available to this employee
if and when she is medically cleared for work.
The Court recommends that the parties agree a progressive increase
in her hours of work in line with the business requirements.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th November, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O.N./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.