INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
M. COLUMB FURNITURE
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION)
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
2. M.Columb Furniture is a family run business involved in the manufacture of a range of specialist furniture products. The Company currently employs twenty one people, four of which are Machinists. The Claimant was employed by the Company for approximately eleven months from September, 2003, to August, 2004. The Union contends that the Claimant was employed as a Wood Machinist by the Company and following the ending of his employment sought, from the Union, clarification of his hourly rate and queried the amount he received in his back-week payment. The Union contacted the Company in relation to both issues and the Company's response was that the Claimant was employed as a General Operative and not as a Machinist and he was paid at the rate of pay disclosed by him at interview stage as being what he had been paid in his prior employment. The Company rejects the claim.
- On the 15th December, 2004, the Unionreferred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th January, 2006.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
3. 1. The Union contends that the Claimant is clear that he applied to the Company for the position of Wood Machinist and that he expected to receive the appropriate rate payable by the Company for that position.
2. It is the Union's contention that when the Claimant's employment ended with the Company he was not paid the full amount due for the back week he worked.
4. 1. The Claimant has not been treated unfairly. He was not employed as a qualified Wood Machinist, as claimed, and he was paid as a General Operative at a rate of pay which he indicated he had been paid in his immediate prior employment.
2. The Claimant was paid in week ending 20th August, 2004, for the arrears of his hours worked for which he had not been paid when he left without notice on the 10th August, 2004, his last day at work.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court does not feel that the Union's case has merit and accordingly does not recommend its concession.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th February, 2006______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.