Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8879 Case Number: AD8815 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CW119/87, concerning alleged money owed for increased duties.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the worker accepts that he has received the
full amount that he was due from the acting allowance in
respect of the period from 1981 to 1983, and that the Board
does not owe him any further monies in respect of it".
(The worker was mentioned by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation). The recommendation was not acceptable to the
worker who appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on 20th January, 1988. A
Court hearing took place on 9th March, 1988, in Athlone.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker contends that there was an agreement to pay him
an extra #5 per week for extra duties. This payment was
stopped at the end of 1983, without any prior notification
from the Board. As a result the worker has suffered a loss,
not only in earnings but also in his pension benefits.
2. The Rights Commissioner believed that the worker's case
was partially weakened by the fact that there no indication
that he looked for the allowance to be paid during the years
1984-87. However, the matter was raised a number of times by
the worker. This fact is confirmed by the Board.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. It was accepted that the post of gardener and assistant
gardener would cease on the retirement of the permanent
holders of these positions. When the gardener retired in 1978
and the assistant gardener in 1981, no acting up appointments
were made from the general labourers to these positions.
6. 2. The payment to the worker concerned in 1983, was personal
and until such time as the head gardener took up duty. While
the Board's letter of 8th December, 1983, might imply that
payment of this allowance was open-ended, this letter must be
considered in the context of subsequent events including the
Board's letter to and discussions with the worker's Union.
The Union was aware that the allowance was not payable on an
ongoing basis.
3. The payments to the worker concerned on a retrospective
basis in two installments were in the nature of a gratuity.
The Board in all the circumstances of the case has acted more
than fairly.
DECISION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court accepts that the Board terminated the allowance on the
appointment of the horticulturist but no direct confirmation of
this fact was made to the worker in question. In these
circumstances and in light of the fact that it has now been
ascertained that the worker himself did on several occasions prior
to his retirement raise the matter of the payment of the
allowance, the Court is of the opinion that the worker should be
paid the sum of #350 in full and final settlement of this claim.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8879 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1588
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. CW119/87, concerning alleged money owed for
increased duties.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Board in
May, 1970. He was employed as a general labourer on grounds
duties. In 1983, his duties were increased and he received an
acting allowance of #5 per week, which was confirmed by letter in
December, 1983. He received 2 lump sum payments in respect of
this allowance. The worker claimed that the allowance should have
been paid retrospectively for the period from early 1984, until
his retirment in May, 1987. He further claimed that this
allowance would have augmented his retirement and pension
benefits.
3. The Board contended that the first payment to the worker
concerned was in respect of the period from April to October,
1983, and the second lump sum was the concession by the Board to a
subsequent claim on his behalf by the Irish Transport and General
Workers' Union for retrospection of the allowance to December,
1981. The Board indicated that re-organisation of the gardening
duties included the appointment of a horticulturist from early
1984, and that it had been agreed that certain sub-supervisory
positions would disappear. The Union was aware that the allowance
terminated then. The Board further maintained that the worker
concerned was informed, verbally, of the conditions surrounding
the allowance, and that no claim was lodged by the worker until
recently.
4. The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation, who issued the following findings and
recommendation on 30th September, 1987:-
"Findings
I do not believe that the worker concerned has produced
sufficient arguments to merit over-turning the Board's
reasons for the termination of the acting allowance. His
case is partially weakened by the fact that there is no
indication that he looked for this allowance to be paid
during the years 1984 to 1987. While it is regrettable that
the letter by the Board to the worker does not specify the
duration of the allowance, such a defect does not
substantially alter the situation.
Recommendation
I recommend that the worker accepts that he has received the
full amount that he was due from the acting allowance in
respect of the period from 1981 to 1983, and that the Board
does not owe him any further monies in respect of it".
(The worker was mentioned by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation). The recommendation was not acceptable to the
worker who appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on 20th January, 1988. A
Court hearing took place on 9th March, 1988, in Athlone.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker contends that there was an agreement to pay him
an extra #5 per week for extra duties. This payment was
stopped at the end of 1983, without any prior notification
from the Board. As a result the worker has suffered a loss,
not only in earnings but also in his pension benefits.
2. The Rights Commissioner believed that the worker's case
was partially weakened by the fact that there no indication
that he looked for the allowance to be paid during the years
1984-87. However, the matter was raised a number of times by
the worker. This fact is confirmed by the Board.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. It was accepted that the post of gardener and assistant
gardener would cease on the retirement of the permanent
holders of these positions. When the gardener retired in 1978
and the assistant gardener in 1981, no acting up appointments
were made from the general labourers to these positions.
6. 2. The payment to the worker concerned in 1983, was personal
and until such time as the head gardener took up duty. While
the Board's letter of 8th December, 1983, might imply that
payment of this allowance was open-ended, this letter must be
considered in the context of subsequent events including the
Board's letter to and discussions with the worker's Union.
The Union was aware that the allowance was not payable on an
ongoing basis.
3. The payments to the worker concerned on a retrospective
basis in two installments were in the nature of a gratuity.
The Board in all the circumstances of the case has acted more
than fairly.
DECISION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court accepts that the Board terminated the allowance on the
appointment of the horticulturist but no direct confirmation of
this fact was made to the worker in question. In these
circumstances and in light of the fact that it has now been
ascertained that the worker himself did on several occasions prior
to his retirement raise the matter of the payment of the
allowance, the Court is of the opinion that the worker should be
paid the sum of #350 in full and final settlement of this claim.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
25th March, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.