Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89719 Case Number: AD8992 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BLACKROCK POST OFFICE (DUNDALK) - and - A WORKER;JAMES MACGUILL SOLICITOR |
Appeal by the Employer against Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. C.W. 140/89 concerning overtime payments.
Recommendation:
5. The appeal made by the Employer in this case inter-alia was
that the Rights Commissioner heard and issued a recommendation
despite the Employers objection to a hearing and non-attendance.
Having examined the background and correspondence relating to the
arranging of the Rights Commissioner's hearing the Court is
satisfied that the appeal is well founded and accordingly should
be upheld.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89719 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9289
INDUSTRIAL RELATION ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: BLACKROCK POST OFFICE (DUNDALK)
(REPRESENTED BY PETER WOODS AND SON SOLICITORS)
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY JAMES MACGUILL SOLICITOR)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Employer against Rights Commissioners
Recommendation No. C.W. 140/89 concerning overtime payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment in April, 1988
initially under a F.A.S. scheme. She received #30.00 per week
together with P.R.S.I. contribution. From September, 1988 she
continued in work for the Employer and her wages were #50 p.w.
She was also given lunch every day. Her hours of work 9-5.30
Monday to Friday, 9-1 on Saturday and she also worked to 6.30 p.m.
on some Wednesday's. She left the employment in November, 1988
following a dispute with the Employer about her wages and overtime
payments. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation on the 20th August, 1989. The
Employer objected to a Rights Commissioner's investigation of the
dispute. However correspondence relating to the Employers
objection was delayed in the post and correspondence which issued
from the Rights Commissioner's Office was sent to the wrong
address and was returned to the Rights Commissioner's office
undelivered. The hearing was held despite the Employer's
objection and non attendance. On the 6th September, 1989 the
Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:-
"I recommend that the Employer pays the sum of #140 to the
worker in full and final settlement of all claims arising
from her employment and its termination, and that this is
accepted by the worker." (Both parties were named in the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
The Employer rejected the recommendation and on the 4th October,
1989 appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held in
Dundalk on the 12th December, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was participating in a F.A.S. scheme
for the first 24 weeks of her employment and was working in
the post office as an assistant. Subsequently the Employer
asked her to remain on in his employment and though working
many extra hours, she received no payment. Between April and
August, 1988 she received no time off so she took one weeks
holiday in August. She received no holiday pay just an extra
#10 from the Employer.
2. In September, 1988 the Employer took a two week holiday
and the worker concerned was asked to look after the post
office and hardware shop as well as the house. She received
two weeks wages and an extra #20. The worker also received
food during this period. In October, 1988 the worker
requested 1.50 days off over the Bank Holiday weekend and
received payment for this.
3. In November, 1988 the worker asked the Employer if she was
entitled to any arrears of income tax and he stated that he
was not sure. He stated that the gross weekly wage was #70
p.w. and #20 was being deducted in respect of income tax and
P.R.S.I. The Employer stated that he would check the position
with his accountant but failed to do so. At this point the
worker concerned indicated that she would be leaving the job
as she had secured new employment.
4. The Employer subsequently confirmed to the worker that on
checking with his accountant he was advised that the employee
was not owed any arrears of wages or tax. When the worker
concerned asked the Employer to help her sort out her tax
situation he refused and the worker stated that she was
leaving the employment. She was told to go and given #40.
The worker never received any details of tax or P.R.S.I.
deductions and never received a pay slip. The worker is now
claiming that the monies owed be repaid to her, in respect of
extra hours worked on Wednesday, and Saturday mornings.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was advised by the Employer at the
very outset that there was no overtime attached to the job.
She was, however, given her lunch each day. During her
employment at the post office she was paid in excess of her
lawful entitlement on several occasions. The Employer tried
to be as fair as possible with the worker. She was given a
week's leave plus a long weekend with pay. She also received
an extra #20.00 for the long weekend. While the Employer was
on holidays the worker was allowed stay in the house for a
period of two weeks. She was also paid a total of #60.00.
2. She indicated to the Employer that she was leaving near
the end of December, 1988, but at the end of November she
expressed dissatisfaction with her wages and decided to leave
the employment. The Employer can categorically state that
there was never any agreement with regard to overtime or
Saturday working. The worker never asked for a written
contract of employment and was often given a lift into the
town by the Employer. The Employer treated the worker fairly,
was reluctant that she should leave the job, and was anxious
to retain her services. The Employer has, at all times, been
willing to pay any monies lawfully due to the worker.
3. The reason the Employer failed to attend the original
Rights Commissioners investigation was due to a delay in the
post and the letter of notification being sent to the wrong
address. The Employer only received notification on the 17th
August, 1989 and the hearing was held on the 22nd August. The
Employer had replied on the 18th August, 1989 explaining his
position and objecting to the Rights Commissioner's
investigation.
4. The worker's claim for overtime is completely rejected by
the Employer as there was never agreement at any stage on
overtime payment. The Employer also rejects the statement in
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation that she was
dismissed without notice. The question of her dismissal was
the subject of separate proceedings and it was determined as a
question of fact that she dismissed herself. The Employer
also rejects the recommendation that #140.00 be paid to the
worker in "full and final settlement of all claims."
DECISION:
5. The appeal made by the Employer in this case inter-alia was
that the Rights Commissioner heard and issued a recommendation
despite the Employers objection to a hearing and non-attendance.
Having examined the background and correspondence relating to the
arranging of the Rights Commissioner's hearing the Court is
satisfied that the appeal is well founded and accordingly should
be upheld.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________________
5th January, 1990 Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.