Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8984 Case Number: AD8932 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH RED CROSS - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Appeal by the Union, on behalf of one worker, against Rights Commissioner's recommendation S.T. 309/88 concerning compensation for work done on a bequest to the Society.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8984 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3289
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: IRISH RED CROSS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union, on behalf of one worker, against Rights
Commissioner's recommendation S.T. 309/88 concerning compensation
for work done on a bequest to the Society.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns work carried out in relation to the Estate
and Will of Madame Winifred Kessel. In May, 1986, the worker
concerned was asked by the Society's General Secretary to take a
look at the Kessel Files, as it was felt that the Society was not
receiving its full entitlement under the Kessel Will. This task,
as it turned out, required a great deal of work on the worker's
part, much of it done in his own time at home, resulting in the
successful acquirement of the full entitlement under the Will to
the Society. The worker maintains that it was suggested to him
that if the outcome of the investigations into the Kessel Estate
were successful, he would receive fair compensation. The worker
suggested 10% of the amount of money saved to the Society would be
reasonable (#54,000 is the amount he contends had been saved up to
that time). The worker further contends that the General
Secretary said that the Chairman of the Society was favourably
disposed to this compensation. On Christmas Eve, 1987, the Acting
Honorary Treasurer offered the worker #1,000. This offer was
rejected by the worker on the grounds that it bore no relation to
previous discussions. On 8th January, 1988, the worker lodged a
formal claim for #10,000 compensation. No agreement could be
reached at local level and the matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation. The Rights Commissioner, who was
requested by the Union to make a recommendation as to the
appropriate amount which should be paid by way of a gratuity,
issued the following recommendation on 29th June, 1988:
"I am satisfied that the claimant put in an extraordinary
amount of additional effort in this enterprise. It is my
view, that whilst technically, the Society were within their
rights in requesting such work to be done under paragraph 8
of his letter of appointment dated 14/7/1983, the work
involved, was of an exceptional nature, and was such as to
warrant special consideration. In the exceptional
circumstances of the case I recommend that the claimant
receives a good will payment of #1,500 for the work which he
did on the project in the tax year 1986/1987 and #1,500 in
the tax year 1987/1988 for the work which he did on it, in
that year. It is a condition of payment that the Claimant
accepts fully that this payment is a gratuity by the grace
and favour of the Society, and is paid to him without
prejudice or precedent, and that he accepts that he has had
no claim against the Society on foot of this work."
3. The worker contends that following the issuing of this
recommendation it was intimated to him by the General Secretary
that a payment of #3,000 net would be made, in order to settle the
matter. The worker, however, heard nothing further. In August,
1988, he claims that the General Secretary told him that the
Chairman was "favourably disposed" to an interim payment of #1,500
net. The Society claims that the worker had indicated that he
intended to appeal the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the
Labour Court and as a result it would not give him an advance on
any sum which may be determined by the Court. On 30th January,
1989, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
to the Labour Court, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 29th March,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union believes that the General Secretary did in fact
enter into an agreement with the worker regarding fair
compensation. Furthermore, the Union believes that the
General Secretary gave a commitment to the worker for a
payment of #1,500 net as a first payment following the issuing
of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
2. The Union believes that the original claim for #10,000
compensation is not unreasonable when measured against the
size of the task carried out. Had it not been for the
commitment and dedication of the worker, the Society would
have had to pay #61,860 in inheritance taxes. As a result of
his efforts the Society's effective gain was #113,000. There
are a total of 192 Royalties and Rights Statements on file to
illustrate the complexity of the work carried out.
3. Paragraph 8 of his terms of employment states "any other
duties which the C.E.0. may from time to time consider
appropriate." The Union believes that it would be
unreasonable to expect the financial controller to take on
this duty as part of this clause because of the sheer
complexity of the task.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker's job description states that he may be
expected to work after hours from time to time with no
remuneration for such overtime and that he must carry out any
of the duties which the C.E.0. may from time to time consider
appropriate. The worker is paid for his efforts. The Society
contest that a claim exists, not the amount of any claim.
2. There was never any implied or expressed agreement that he
would be compensated in the fashion he has outlined. He has
based his claim on charges made for similar work by outside
agencies, however, he fails to remember that he is an employee
of the Society. The claim itself is in breach of his
conditions of employment.
3. The proceedings during the Rights Commissioner's Hearing
were such that the parties, having made their submissions,
went into side conference. Through this side conference
process, the Rights Commissioner established certain terms
under which he could make a recommendation, knowing that the
recommendation would be acceptable to both sides. The Rights
Commissioner recommends in the last few lines that the payment
would be without prejudice or precedent and that the worker
should accept that he has no claim against the Society on foot
of his work. It is on this basis that the Society indicated
to the Rights Commissioner that they would be prepared to pay
him #3,000 gross. It was the worker himself who suggested the
method of payment as it was the most tax efficient.
4. The Society is surprised that the worker is appealing the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation as the Society believed
that the recommendation was confirmation of an agreement
reached at the Rights Commissioner hearing.
5. On a daily basis, through the efforts of all Society
staff, money is saved and gained. The implications of
conceding this claim for work done based on a percentage of
the Society's benefit is far reaching and could affect any
employment situation in the Society.
DECISION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
14th April, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.