Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86849 Case Number: AD877 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BALLYMOUNT PRECISION ENG. - and - MR. F. HIGGINS |
Appeal by the Company and the worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW106/86 concerning the loss of production bonus of a worker.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation which it upholds. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86849 THE LABOUR COURT AD7/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 7 OF 1987
PARTIES: BALLYMOUNT PRECISION ENGINEERING LIMITED
and
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Company and the worker against Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW106/86 concerning the loss of
production bonus of a worker.
Background:
2. The Company was established in 1980 and currently employs
thirty five people. The worker concerned has been employed by the
Company since 1982. In February, 1984, he was made foreman and
was also given responsibility for scheduling production on target
each month and was paid an additional #100 (net) per month. In
May, 1986, the Company decided to appoint a Production Manager due
to the expansion of work and extra responsibilities arising. The
worker was informed that as the Production Manager would now be
responsible for production at the end of each month, the extra
payment was to be stopped. The worker served a claim on the
Company for compensation for the loss of these monies, and as
agreement could not be reached the matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. Having
investigated the matter the Rights Commissioner issued the
following recommendation:
"It is obvious that the Company was small and relatively
unstructured at the time when the bonus was negotiated.
Since then it has grown and different systems and skills
may be necessary. I accept that there is no reflection on
the capability and performance of the worker. He naturally
had an expectation that the bonus would continue. On the
other hand he had only been in receipt of it for a little
over 2 years. I believe that the bonus might have been
withdrawn earlier on the basis of some compensation if any
negotiations had taken place.
I recommend that the Company offers and that the worker
accepts the sum of #500 in settlement of this dispute to be
paid in 2 equal parts, one now and one on the 1st January,
1987".
(The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
3. Both the Company and the worker appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Company had offered the worker #200 as a
settlement. The Court heard the appeal on 16th December, 1986.
Worker's arguments:
4. (i) The worker, when appointed foreman in February, 1984,
was paid a monthly bonus of #100 instead of a rise in
salary. There was no mention of this being a
temporary payment.
(ii) The Company's argument that the extra payment was in
respect of a particular product is untrue. The worker
received a bonus for this prior to being appointed and
this was then stopped when he became foreman.
(iii) Any delays in production that occurred would have been
due to tools not being made to sufficient quality or
where materials required for production were not
delivered on time. Figures were supplied on all jobs
in progress, for inclusion in work charts kept by the
Company.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The bonus was originally paid to the worker concerned
when he was given responsibility for a particular
product. Although this contract was lost, the Company
continued to pay the bonus on the understanding that
the worker would be responsible for getting all
production out at the end of each month.
(b) Due to expansion in the Company and the high standard
of precision work involved the Company decided a
Production Manager was needed with the same tool-
making experience as the worker but with extra
qualifications and who would have responsibility for
all production work including planning and schedules
which are essential in such a business. The worker
concerned did not maintain all production deadlines
nor supply sufficient information or keep proper
records on the progress of jobs. The materials
necessary for production are ordered at the start of
each month, 90% of deliveries are on time, allowance
is made in production schedules for delays.
(c) The worker concerned is employed by the Company as a
foreman and paid accordingly, as he is no longer
responsible for production deadlines he is not now
being paid the bonus.
DECISION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation which it upholds. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th January, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
U.M./P.W. Deputy Chairman