Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

{A Worker}

{A Company}

Representatives

Joseph Ateb Siptu Trade Union

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00001046

25/01/2023

The Worker worked with the employer since 1982 and recently retired.

The Worker retired in August 2022 after over 40 years of service with an unblemished record. His weekly pay was around €500 gross.

In 2021 his trade union entered into negotiations with the employer which were protracted. The pay terms were balloted and accepted on 13th September 2022. It included a 2.75% increase effective 1 April 2021 including €500 through the small benefit voucher scheme. A minimum guarantee of €500 will apply to qualifying employees. 4.75% increase effective 1 April 2022, increase effective 1 April 2023.

The Worker was amazed to find he was not included in the payment. When he raised it, he was told he was not eligible as he was already retired. The Worker says he retired only 4 weeks before and the pay covered the period he was in employment. The Worker says he has been treated very unfairly and has undermined his trust and impacted him emotionally and financially.

The Respondent entered into negotiations with the trade union and a Labour Court recommendation dated 21 July 2022 was rejected. Amended terms were then accepted by the trade union on 13th September 2022.

The agreement was subject to co-operation with normal ongoing change and retrospection to April 2021. The Worker could not co-operate with normal change as he was retired, so the agreement did not apply to him. The Worker was employed since 16th April 1984. As the Worker had retired four weeks earlier, he did not receive any back pay.

The Respondent has staff retiring on an ongoing basis, and it is difficult to differentiate between those who retired close to the date of the agreement and a year earlier. The Respondent submits the Labour Court decision specifically refers to employees not ex-employees. The Respondent submits the appropriate route is to have sought clarification from the Labour Court.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The Worker has been employed as a General Operative for over 40 years since 1984. The Labour Court recommendation of 21 July 2022 was rejected by the members and revised terms were accepted by the members on 13th September 2022 which included retrospection to April 2021.

The Worker retired on 15th August 2022 however, the benefits of the pay agreement of 13 September 2022 were not applied. There is provision for retrospection to April 2021 in the agreement. Given the Workers particular situation and length of service, I recommend payment of the benefits of the pay agreement by the Respondent to the Worker covering his service from April 2021 until 15th August 2022.