Up Arrow
 
 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and press GO

 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and then press GO

 
 
 

2003

Information Icon Water Mark
Up Arrow

Add to Binder allows you to add Workplace Relations content to your personal binder for viewing or printing later.

Binder icon image Binder

To access your binder, click the Binder link at the top of the page.

 
 

LCR17380

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/382
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17380
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969



PARTIES :
DUBARRY SHOES LIMITED

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
SUBJECT:
1. Payment of bonus.


BACKGROUND:

2. A system of modular manufacturing was introduced in the Company in August, 1996. Under the terms of an agreement, a once-off compensatory bonus for the then Grade A operators was introduced, the reason being that modular manufacturing would be less financially beneficial for them as they were higher earners. The bonus was in the region of €600. The dispute concerns the fact that the Company is refusing to pay the bonus to the worker concerned which the Union claims is due since his move to a module in 1999. The Company maintains that the worker was not Grade A prior to his move and so is not entitled to the payment.



The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 16th of July, 2002, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of November, 2002, in Galway, the earliest date suitable to the parties.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The worker was earning Grade A wages before his move to modular manufacturing.

2. Documentation shows the worker earning 114A (out of a maximum of 115) within weeks of joining the module. This could only be achieved by a Grade A worker as he received no training.

3. The Company has been unable to demonstrate, via wage records, that the worker was not Grade A.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company does not have a record of work sheets prior to 2000. The production manager, who was responsible for introducing Modular Manufacturing, is adamant that the worker concerned was not a Grade A operator prior to his move in 1999. At that time he was a Grade B operator and was, in fact, only doing general repairs on Grade B work.



RECOMMENDATION:

The Company management are adamant that the claimant is not entitled to the disputed bonus payment. However, while limited documentation was produced to argue the case, the bulk of relevant information sheets have, given the time scale, been destroyed.

The Union argues forcefully that documentation they have produced, although limited, clearly indicates that the claimant was, within weeks, at a level that could only have been achieved by a Grade A worker as he had received no training.

Given the lack of relevant documentation, the conflict of evidence and the time frame involved, the Court recommends that the Company pays the claimant half of the bonus amount involved. In making this Recommendation, the Court is taking into account that the Union accepts that this is the only case of its type in the Company.






Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
16th January, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this page

 
logo-sml
Links|About the Reform Programme|Accessibility|Privacy Policy|Disclaimer|Sitemap

Registered Address: Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, O'Brien Road, Carlow