INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SUTTONS OIL LTD
(REPRESENTED BY PATRICK J DURCAN SOLICITORS)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Hayes
Employer Member: Ms Cryan
Worker Member: Mr Shanahan
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-147043-14-ir/MH
2. This case is an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-147043-14-ir/MH. The issue concerns the non payment of a continuity bonus to the employee. In February 2014 the Company share holding was acquired and a continuity incentive payment was agreed and paid to all staff who positively contributed to the change over to the new Management structure. Management contends that the worker did not have an entitlement to the payment as he had not supported the transition. The Union refutes Management's position and is seeking the payment of the incentive payment to the worker.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 9th April 2015 and recommended that the worker be paid the incentive payment.
On the 18th May 2015 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 24th September 2015.
3 1 Management contends that the worker did not positively contribute or support the transition to the new management structure. This is completely untrue. The worker was, at times during the transition, on sick leave and was unable to be as involved as he would have liked. However, he did as much as he could possibly have done to be supportive and passed on sales calls to the employer while on sick leave. The Union contends that the payment should be made immediately to the worker.
4 1 Management does not accept that the worker did his best to be supportive of the transition and hence qualify for the payment. He did not make him self available for meetings with management and it is contested that he passed on sales calls while on sick leave. In all the circumstances Management does not consider that the payment should be made.
Having given careful consideration to the extensive submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds that while the Claimant co-operated in some measure with the transfer of the business to the new owners he did not do so to the extent necessary to earn an entitlement to payment of the full bonus set out in the relevant Agreement.
Equally the Company did not so notify the Claimant that he was putting the bonus payment at risk by failing to comply with what it required of him.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court finds that the matter should be resolved by the payment of 50% of the bonus to the Claimant in full and final settlement of this dispute.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th October 2015______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.