Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88442 Case Number: LCR12002 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SMB PRINT LIMITED T/A IMS LABELS - and - A WORKER |
Claim for compensation in respect of non-payment of salary, commission, expenses and bonus.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that a reasonable manner of settling this dispute
is for the Company to offer and the worker to accept a sum of five
hundred pounds in total settlement of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88442 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12002
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: SMB PRINT LIMITED T/A IMS LABELS
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation in respect of non-payment of salary,
commission, expenses and bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The employee joined the Company as a sales representative in
October, 1987. In February, 1988 the worker secured a higher paid
position with another company which he accepted. He tendered his
resignation on Thursday, 25th February, 1988 giving his Employer
four days' notice. His Employer refused to accept his resignation
and alleges that the employee left his job voluntarily. The
Company issued a cheque to the employee in respect of a bonus
earned and based on orders booked prior to the employee leaving
the Company. When the employee cashed this cheque at his local
garage it transpired that the Company had stopped the cheque, and
the garage owner requested cash from the employee. The employee
claims that the Company owes him between five and six hundred
pounds in arrears of salary, commission, expenses and bonus. The
worker requested that a Rights Commissioner investigate his case
but the Company was not agreeable to a hearing. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and Recommendation
on the 14th June, 1988. A hearing took place on the 3rd August,
1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's starting salary with the Company was £6,000
per annum. In February, 1988 he took up a better position
with another company with a much higher salary which he
accepted as he has a mortgage and family to support. The new
company wished him to start as soon as possible and as he was
not six months with the Company he therefore offered his
Employer his resignation with one week's notice as required by
the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. The
employee was assured by the Company that his cheque would be
forwarded within a matter of days.
2. Approximately two weeks before he left the Company the
worker received a bonus cheque which he should have received
with his salary but did not, and he had to ask on a number of
occasions for this bonus cheque which he eventually received.
Payment was stopped on the cheque by the Company after the
employee had cashed it in his local garage. The garage owner
came to the employee's home requesting payment in cash, which
had to be borrowed from the Bank by the worker. The employee
was placed in a most embarrassing situation by the Company and
feels that he has been treated in a derisory fashion. To date
he has not received his salary commission, expenses and bonus
cheque due to him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the employee joined the Company, one of the
conditions of his, employment was that he would give the
Company one month's notice on the termination of his
employment. The employee tendered his resignation on the
morning of Thursday, 25th February, 1988, and requested that
he be allowed to leave his employment on Monday the 29th
February, 1988. This request was refused. The employee
subsequently called into the office on Monday, 29th February,
and returned the Company's property including the Company car,
and walked out of the building. The effect of the employee's
action was that he gave one working days notice and not one
month as per his contract. All salary, and commission due to
the employee up to his monthly salary of the 15th February,
were paid to him in full on that date.
2. The employee should have claimed his expenses on a weekly
basis, but he did not do so. On the morning of the 29th
February, 1988, the employee handed in four weeks expenses for
the four weeks ending 26th February, 1988. It has been
impossible to verify these expenses after such a time lapse.
A bonus based on booked orders was paid to the employee on the
week before he left his employment. It subsequently
transpired that some of those orders which made up the
bookings target were bogus, and therefore the payment of the
bonus (which was only made in good faith) was stopped.