FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : STONEARCH BRANCH RANDSTONE LIMITED - AND - 14 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY ELEANOR O'BRIEN ) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR9296/02, IR12315/02, IR10333/02, IR 9362/02, IR9361/02, IR9295/02, IR9483/02, IR9405/02, IR9569/02, IR9274/02, IR9931/02, IR9830/02, IR9327/02, IR9297/02/LM.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns 14 workers, 13 of whom were declared redundant on the 28th November, 2001 the date of closure of the Company. They were declared redundant between December, 2001 and January, 2002. The other worker was declared redundant in October, 2002. The workers claim that a pay agreement was reached in March, 2000 between the Operations Manager and the workers which provided for pay increases backdated to November, 1999 as follows:
DATE DURATION INCREASE
1st November, 1999 ---2000 12 months 5.5%
1st November, 2000---2001 12 months 5.5%
1st November, 2001---31st December, 2002 14 months 4.0%
The introduction of a 39 hour week was to be implemented over a three year period by increasing annual leave entitlements by 2 days in each of the years 2000, 2001, and 2002. Parallel to this agreement was a long standing agreement that workers would also receive service pay of £2(€2.54) per week per year of service.The workers claim that the 4% increase due on the 1st November, 2001 and the £2(€2.54)per week service pay was never implemented and that their salaries for redundancy purposes were based on their pay as at 31st October, 2001. The workers sought to have their redundancy payments re-calculated to include the increase from 1st November, 2001. The Company rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 29th May, 2003 the Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation as follows:
"For the reason set out in the foregoing, the Company to pay the claimants all monies due"
(The workers were named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation)
On the 8th July, 2003 the Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal on the 15th December, 2004.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Operations Manager was appointed in Mid 1997 to assist in the running of the Company's operations and was given specific limits to his authority and responsibility. He was told that he must reduce costs. He was informed that he did not have the authority to hire any workers or increase wages without the written permission of the Managing Director. The Operations Manager's request to increase operatives wages in 1997 was granted. However, subsequent requests were denied because of the financial condition of the business. The Managing Director discovered in the latter part of 2000 that the Operations Manager had, nonetheless, increased the wages of workers. He had not informed the Managing Director of this fact. The Managing Director informed workers in November, 2000 that the Operations Manager had acted outside his authority and that his promises could not be kept due to the Company's financial position.
2. The Managing Director requested the Operations Manager to write to workers stating that he had acted outside of his authority. He conformed to the Managing Director that he had so informed all workers.
3. There was no authorised agreement for a wage increase. There was only an unauthorised proposal.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS.
4. 1. The Operations Manager had negotiated two wage agreements during his tenure in the Company. In November, 2000 the second part of the agreement, 5.5% plus service pay was paid. In November, 2001 the Managing Director confirmed workers' entitlements to the 2 extra days holidays in that leave year as agreed with the Operations Manager. In November, 2001 the third part of the agreement was due and requested by workers, to no avail.
2. Under the Redundancy Payments Acts, calculation of a week's pay should be the pay for the normal working hours at the date a worker is declared redundant. It was pointed out to the Managing Director that this should include the 4% due on the 1st November, 2001 and the £2(€2.54) service pay.
3. At all times workers have disputed the calculation used in determining their redundancy entitlements. The claimants are seeking payment of the monies owed to them from 1st November, 2001 to the time of their dismissals. They are claiming the monies owed to them had the calculation of redundancy entitlements been based on the increased figure.
DECISION:
Having considered the oral and written evidence presented to it at the hearing, the Court does not feel that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner should be altered. The Decision of the Court is to dismiss the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
13th January, 2005______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.