Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91284 Case Number: AD9164 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: GLASS TECHNOLOGY (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST355/90 concerning a claim for overtime and bonus payments.
Recommendation:
"In relation to the bonus claim I recommend that the claimant
receives 9 weeks @ #20 per week less #40 paid. Total due:
#140.
On the question of early starts I recommends that he receives
#5 per hour x 1.5 times x 5 days per week x 9 weeks. Total
due #337.50.
In relation to the evening overtime I am satisfied that 2
hours per night at 1.5 times is due. I recommend payment as
follows: #5 per hour x 2 hours per night x 5 days per week x
9 weeks = Total due: #675.00.
I recommend that he receives one week's basic pay of #180 for
the delay in producing his P.45 etc."
5. The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on the
basis that the amounts awarded were insufficient to compensate him
for earnings lost. The Court heard the appeal in Portlaoise on
16th July, 1991. The Company did not attend nor was it
represented at the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation did not take into
account the Company's agreement to meet the worker's tax
liabilities and consequently based his recommendation on the
worker's nett pay instead of his gross. Had the gross rate
been taken into account, the hourly rate for calculating
overtime would have been greater.
2. The overtime for early starts should have been paid at
double time which is the norm in the industry.
3. The amount awarded in respect of the delay in forwarding
the worker's P.45 should be increased as he was unable to
avail of an offer of work due to this delay. The worker is
still unemployed.
DECISION:
7. The Court notes that the Company did not respond to the
Court's invitation to attend the hearing. Having considered the
submission from the appellant, the Court is of the view that the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation is fair in the circumstances
and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91284 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6491
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: GLASS TECHNOLOGY (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. ST355/90 concerning a claim for overtime and
bonus payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company in April,
1990. He remained in its employment for nine weeks. He was
employed as a foreman.
3. It was verbally agreed that he would receive #180 nett, a
bonus of #30 a week and he would be paid overtime for hours worked
outside of normal working hours. The worker contends that the
overtime agreement was not implemented, that he worked an average
of 3 hours overtime per day (one hour early start) and that he was
not paid for it. On the question of bonus he received #10 for one
week and #30 for another week. He raised the matter with his
employer on a number of occasions and when he did not get any
satisfaction he left his employment. He received his P.45 three
weeks later.
4. The worker referred the issue of the non-payment of overtime
and bonus payments to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute
on 17th May, 1991 and on the 23rd May, 1991 issued the following
recommendation:-
"In relation to the bonus claim I recommend that the claimant
receives 9 weeks @ #20 per week less #40 paid. Total due:
#140.
On the question of early starts I recommends that he receives
#5 per hour x 1.5 times x 5 days per week x 9 weeks. Total
due #337.50.
In relation to the evening overtime I am satisfied that 2
hours per night at 1.5 times is due. I recommend payment as
follows: #5 per hour x 2 hours per night x 5 days per week x
9 weeks = Total due: #675.00.
I recommend that he receives one week's basic pay of #180 for
the delay in producing his P.45 etc."
5. The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on the
basis that the amounts awarded were insufficient to compensate him
for earnings lost. The Court heard the appeal in Portlaoise on
16th July, 1991. The Company did not attend nor was it
represented at the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation did not take into
account the Company's agreement to meet the worker's tax
liabilities and consequently based his recommendation on the
worker's nett pay instead of his gross. Had the gross rate
been taken into account, the hourly rate for calculating
overtime would have been greater.
2. The overtime for early starts should have been paid at
double time which is the norm in the industry.
3. The amount awarded in respect of the delay in forwarding
the worker's P.45 should be increased as he was unable to
avail of an offer of work due to this delay. The worker is
still unemployed.
DECISION:
7. The Court notes that the Company did not respond to the
Court's invitation to attend the hearing. Having considered the
submission from the appellant, the Court is of the view that the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation is fair in the circumstances
and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
29th July, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.