FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND LTD - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendations r-076865-Ir-09/EH & r-076866-ir-09/EH
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioner's Recommendations r-076865-Ir-09/EH & r-076866-ir-09/EH. The issue concerns two Chargehands employed by the Company and their continuing entitlement to a half weeks pay as a Christmas Bonus. Management's position is that the Shared Bonus Scheme introduced in 2006 gives staff a bonus payment which exceeds the initial Differential/Christmas Bonus payment.
The Union's position is that the workers had an entitlement to payment of the differential above other grades to reflect their position as chargehands and that the entitlements under the Shared Bonus Scheme does not maintain that differential.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His Recommendation issued on the 16th September, 2009 and recommended that the workers retain the half-weeks bonus going forward and be retrospectively paid for 2008. He further recommended that any proposed changes to the situation in future should be negtotiated through the normal agreed industrial relations machinery.
On the 9th October, 2009 the employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th June, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The workers in question are employed as Chargehands. This salaried position attracts a differential of a half weeks pay above other categories of staff and was paid at Christmas time. The payment of this differential should continue irrespective of the payments received under the new Shared Bonus Scheme as these workers were always in receipt of a differential over other staff.
2 The 2006 National Agreement provides for the continuation of all entitlements unless specifically stated. This is further proof that the workers remain entitled to the differential which was paid to them over many years.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1The workers are no longer entitled to the payment of the bonus as it was incorporated into the Shared Bonus Scheme Agreement of2006.
2The introduction of the Shared Bonus Scheme in 2006 has resulted in staff receiving additional bonuses in excess of what was received under the old system. The workers in question have also received addtional payments which equated to more than they received previously.
DECISION:
The Court is satisfied that historically the Claimants in this case had an entitlement, by reason of their supervisory role, to a 25% differential in bonus payments relative to other employees. There is nothing in the 2006 Agreement which provides for the elimination of this differential.
In these circumstances the Rigts Commissioner was correct in his conclusion and his recommendation is reasonable and appropriate.
Accordingly the Company's appeal is disallowed and the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd June 2010______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.