Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88655 Case Number: LCR12082 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH ESTATES MANAGEMENT LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker for the payment of one week's arrears of wages and one week's holiday pay.
Recommendation:
9. The Court is satisfied that the worker concerned has received
all monies due to him on the termination of his employment and
does not therefore recommend concession of his claims.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88655 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12082
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: IRISH ESTATES MANAGEMENT LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker for the payment of one week's arrears of
wages and one week's holiday pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company as a security
guard from 22nd May, 1980 up to the termination of his employment
on 8th April, 1988.
3. He was a member of an eight man team who working in pairs
provided 24 hour security at the Irish Life Centre. Each team
worked 14 shifts of 12 hours each per 4 week period totalling 168
hours per shift period. The shifts operated as follows:
Week 1 3 shifts - 36 hours paid 40 hours
Week 2 Nil Nil paid 40 hours
Week 3 4 shifts 48 hours paid 40 hours
Week 4 7 shifts 84 hours paid 40 hours
Each worker is paid for 40 hours basic pay every week irrespective
of hours worked. At the end of the shift period the actual hours
worked are totalled and any hours in excess of 160 (subject to a
maximum of 168) are paid at double time.
4. When the worker's employment terminated on 8th April, 1988 he
claimed one week's arrears of wages and one week's holidays pay.
The worker maintains that he worked a back week when he commenced
employment with the Company in 1980. He also maintains that he is
entitled to one week's holiday pay.
5. The Company rejected the claim and contend that the worker was
paid all his entitlements when his employment terminated.
6. The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by
the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 3rd
October, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. When the worker commenced employment with the Company in
1980 he started work in the middle of the shift cycle. He
worked 48 and 84 hour weeks respectively. He was paid for a
40 hour week for both weeks. As he was not paid for 40 of the
excess hours he assumed that this was a back week and did not
query it until he ceased employment with the Company.
2. On the holiday pay issue, there is a house agreement which
provides for 180 hours a year based on the amount of hours
worked. The worker did not receive his full holiday pay on
leaving the Company in accordance with this agreement. It is
accepted that he received his statutory entitlement under the
Holidays Employees Act, 1973 which provides for far less
holidays than the house agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. It is not the practice to work a back week in the Company.
Under the four week cycle shift all outstanding monies due are
paid at the end of each cycle. This is the position for all
workers. The shift system has been in operation for the past
twelve years. The Company employs and has employed a large
number of workers over the years and this is the first time
that a complaint of this nature has been made.
2. Regarding the question of holiday pay an inspector from
the Department of Labour investigated the worker's complaint
and found no grounds to substantiate same. In fact the worker
has received in excess of his entitlements under both statute
entitlement and the house agreement (details supplied to the
Court).
3. The Company is satisfied that it has discharged all its
obligations to the worker concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court is satisfied that the worker concerned has received
all monies due to him on the termination of his employment and
does not therefore recommend concession of his claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
25th October, 1988. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.