This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

LCR22547

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/21/253

RECOMMENDATION  NO.  LCR22547


SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

PRENCO MANUFACTURING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

Chairman:

Ms O'Donnell

Employer Member:

Mr Marie

Worker Member:

Mr Hall


SUBJECT:

1. Long Service Bonus



BACKGROUND:

2. The Union on behalf of the Worker referred this dispute to the Labour Court on 27 October 2021 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A remote Labour Court hearing took place on 27 January 2022.



RECOMMENDATION :

This Worker’s complaint is in respect of the failure by her then Employer to pay her a long service award. The Employer made a written submission to the Court but did not attend.

The Union on behalf of the Worker submitted that the Worker should have received a long service award after twenty-five years’ service on the 18th August 2021. However, it was the Employer’s position that the practise in respect of long service lumpsum had changed in 2014 and therefore the Worker was not due a lumpsum. The Worker retired from employment on the 24th of March 2021.

Section 26A (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 states;

Notwithstanding any other provision of this or any other enactment, but subject to subsection (2), an adjudication officer or the Court shall not investigate a trade dispute to which a worker who has ceased to be employed by reason of his or her retirement is a party unless-

(a) The dispute was referred to the Commission for conciliation within a period of 6 months from the date on which the worker’s employment ceased, or the date on which the event to which the dispute relates occurred whichever is the earlier, or

(b) The dispute was referred to an adjudication officer or, as the case may be the Court within the period referred to in a paragraph 9(a).

The Court finds that this dispute was not referred to the Court within the time limits set out in the Act and therefore the Court cannot investigate the dispute.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Louise O'Donnell

DC

______________________

18 February 2022

Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.