INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Monetary Payment
2. This case concerns a dispute between Aer Lingus and the worker in relation to the alleged breach of an agreement. The worker is claiming that following her redundancy in March 1995, that she was employed on a contractual basis to complete projects that began prior to the redundancy and that she was not remunerated as agreed by the Company. The worker is also claiming that she was not provided with a contract of employment in relation to her continued work with the Company.
The Company's position is that all employees are furnished with a contract of employment and that there are no such records in existence in this case nor are there any records in relation to the claimants alleged arrangement with management at the time.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 21st August 2006, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 16th January, 2007.
3 1. The worker was required to remain in the employment of the Company to complete projects that began prior to the redundancy. At the time, an arrangement was entered into with management that in return for such work payment would be made in the form of I.T equipment. Given the passage of time and the ensuing difficulties experienced by the worker, the claim to be paid for the six months work index linked to the appropriate current pay rates is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
4 1. There is no record of any contract of employment or other arrangements relating to the claims made by the worker. It is standard procedure that all employees receive a contract of employment when commencing employment with the Company.
2. The alleged arrangement with management at the time cannot be substantiated as the managerial staff in question are no longer employed by the Company nor can the Company cannot attempt to resolve a dispute that is not supported within the organisation by documented records.
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of the parties. The Court is disappointed at the failure of the Company to seriously address the issues involved at an earlier date or at least to engage with the claimant, either directly or at the Labour Relations Commission.
The Court is also of the view that the claimant despite her acknowledged difficulties, could have done more to progress her grievance at an earlier date.
The Court notes that the Company accepts that work was performed in the six months in contention and thus recommends that the Company pay the claimant a sum of €15,000 in full and final settlement of the claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd February 2007______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.