Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90417 Case Number: LCR13016 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH CAR PARKS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker for retrospective pay.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the Company did not attend the hearing
and submitted their view on the claim by letter.
Having considered all the evidence submitted the Court finds no
grounds for recommending concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90417 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13016
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: IRISH CAR PARKS LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker for retrospective pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker's employment with the Company ceased in December,
1989 following approximately nine years employment in the Company.
Subsequently, a pay rise was applied in the Company which was
backdated to January, 1989 and the worker claimed that he should
receive this increase for the period from which it was applicable
to the date his employment with the Company ceased. This was
rejected by the Company on the basis that the worker's employment
with the Company was terminated following a number of incidents
and that the worker was paid a sum of money in full and final
settlement of all that was due and owing to him in respect of his
employment with the Company. The worker subsequently referred the
matter to the Rights Commissioner's Service for investigation and
recommendation. However, the Company was not agreeable to such an
investigation and the worker subsequently 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 recommendation of the Court. The Court
investigated the dispute on 29th August, 1990. The Company did
not attend the hearing, but submitted a letter on the matter, a
summary of which is set out as the Company's arguments below.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed by the Company for about nine
years until December, 1989 when he was made redundant.
Approximately three months later the national wage agreement
came into effect and was backdated to January, 1989. This
therefore included a period of several months during which the
worker had still been in employment with the Company. When
the worker left the Company the back pay was still being
negotiated and was not agreed until after he left its
employment. The worker is entitled to the back pay for the
relevant period of his employment in the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During his employment with the Company the worker was
disciplined on several occasions for different types of
misconduct (details supplied to the Court). On 13th July,
1989 the worker was given a week's suspension and a final
warning that any further breaches of discipline would result
in dismissal. On 20th September, 1989 management visited the
car park on which the worker was employed and found
unauthorised persons on the site. The worker was informed
that if such a situation occurred again it would be regarded
as a serious breach and be dealt with accordingly.
2. On 18th November, 1989 the general manager discovered a
stranger operating the site where the worker was supposed to
be and when the worker returned he was informed that
disciplinary procedures would be brought against him. A
meeting was held with the general manager, the worker and the
shop steward, at which it was decided that the worker's
employment with the Company would be terminated with the
payment of a sum of money in full and final settlement of all
that was due and owing to the worker in respect of his
employment with the Company. Both the worker and the shop
steward agreed to this arrangement and a payment was made to
the worker in two amounts, #2,942 and #1,057, on 22nd
December, 1989. The worker signed a receipt stating that
these payments were in full and final settlement of his claims
(details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the Company did not attend the hearing
and submitted their view on the claim by letter.
Having considered all the evidence submitted the Court finds no
grounds for recommending concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___________________
7th September, 1990.
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.