INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
MANGAN BROS CASH AND CARRY
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-021630-Ir19-04/Gf
2. The worker commenced employment as a branch operator on the 26th of August, 2002, and resigned on the 31st of August, 2003. His claim concerns payment of phase 1 (3%) of Sustaining Progress from 1st of January,2003, to 31st August, 2003. The Company did not pay this phase until 8th of December, 2003, as there was ongoing discussion between the parties in relation to the introduction of a new clocking-in system (retrospection was not paid until March, 2004). The Company believes that because the worker was no longer employed at that time that he is not entitled to any retrospective pay.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and his Recommendation was as follows:-
"I have given the case serious consideration and on balance I am inclined to agree with the claimant submission dealing with the history of the issue. Therefore, I recommend he be paid the sum of €775 in settlement of the matter".
(There was a dispute between the parties as to the amount due. At the hearing the worker accepted that the correct amount was probably the Company's estimation of €275.) The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 22nd of April, 2005, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th of November, 2005, in Castlebar, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1.The worker had worked his notice and left his employment on the 31st of August, 2003. He received all monies owed to him.
2. The Company has only ever paid retrospection to employees listed on the payroll at the time National Agreements were ratified by the Company and Union. Concession of the claim would lead to a number of knock on claims from past employees.
4. 1. The worker did not receive the 3% increase due to him as there was a disagreement with staff over the implementation of the new Clocking System. The 3% was not paid until the issue was resolved and by that time the worker had left the Company. However, other employees still with the Company were paid retrospection from the 1st of January, 2003, and the worker believes that he should be paid the same.
The dispute before the Court concerns the non-payment of a national pay agreement award to a former employee. Having considered the background to the negotiations on the pay award and the employee’s status at the time of those negotiations, the Court recommends that he should be paid the sum of €275 in full and final settlement of all claims.
The Rights Commissioner’s recommendation is varied accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th December, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.