Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90663 Case Number: AD9120 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: NAOMH BRENDAIN CREDIT UNION LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW95/90 concerning a change in the conditions of her employment.
Recommendation:
5. Having heard the submissions of the parties, the Court
considers that the claimant should be paid as follows by the
Credit Union:-
- From the date she commenced working 16 hours per week
to 31st December, 1990 she should be paid #216.48 gross
per month.
- From 1st January, 1991 she should be paid at a rate of
#246.00 per month for working a 16 hour week.
- She should be paid an additional sum of #300 to
compensate for the period to 31st December, 1990 and
for other costs.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90663 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2091
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: NAOMH BRENDAIN CREDIT UNION LIMITED
(Represented by Concanon & Meagher Solicitors)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
CW95/90 concerning a change in the conditions of her employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Credit Union in 1982
as a part-time clerical assistant. Her working hours were 3 hours
per day 4 days a week. Her wages were approximately #196 gross
per month/#3.78 per hour (as at March, 1990). In March, 1990, she
was informed that the office opening hours were being changed and
that she would be required to work an extra 4 hours per week. For
the extra hours she would be paid an increase in salary of 10%
i.e. an increase of #19.60 per month. The worker felt that it was
unreasonable to expect her to work an extra 16 hours per month for
this amount. The worker contested the matter but the Credit Union
informed her that the matter was not negotiable and that she would
have to sign a new contract of employment by 1st April, 1990. The
worker signed her new conditions of employment under threat of
dismissal and registered her protest. The worker referred the
matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation and on 26th June, 1990, the Rights Commissioner
issued the following recommendation:-
"I recommend that the worker accepts her present rate of pay
and that the Credit Union offers and she accepts a lump sum
of #300 in settlement of this dispute payable by March,
1990. I further recommend that the figure of #3.78 per hour
is taken as her basic rate from 1991 and that this rate and
her other conditions of employment are only altered after
joint negotiation then or in the future.
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
On 12th November, 1990, the worker concerned appealed the
Recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations act, 1969, on the grounds that she did not
accept her current rate of pay and because she felt she had been
put through a lot of difficulty in securing what she regarded as
her correct rate of pay. The Court heard the appeal on 6th
February, 1991, in Galway.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker believes that it is unreasonable of the
employer to expect her to work an extra 16 hours per month for
#19.60/#1.22 per hour. She has not had a wage increase for 3
years.
2. The worker appeals the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation to the Labour Court claiming that the correct
rate of pay should be her hourly rate multiplied by her new
hours and for compensation for the difficulties encountered
and trauma suffered in trying to secure the correct rate.
CREDIT UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In January, 1990, the worker concerned informed the
Credit Union that she did not have sufficient time to enter
the dockets in the ledgers. The Board of Directors decided to
review both her working hours and the office opening hours.
As a result of this review it was decided to alter the
worker's hours of work and the hours of opening. It was also
decided that the worker's salary be increased by 10%.
2. New Conditions of Employment were presented to the
worker and initially she refused to sign them as she was not
agreeable to the increase granted. She subsequently signed
them but indicated that she would be referring the matter to a
Rights Commissioner.
3. The Rights Commissioner made two main recommendations,
(1) that she be paid a lump sum of #300 and (2) that a figure
of #3.78 per hour be taken as her basic rate from 1991. The
Credit Union is prepared to consider paying an hourly wage of
#3.78 but under no circumstances will the Credit Union agree
to pay the #300 lump sum as the circumstances do not warrant
it. The credit Union felt at the time of giving the 10%
increase to the worker that this was fair and reasonable
having regard to the circumstances.
DECISION:
5. Having heard the submissions of the parties, the Court
considers that the claimant should be paid as follows by the
Credit Union:-
- From the date she commenced working 16 hours per week
to 31st December, 1990 she should be paid #216.48 gross
per month.
- From 1st January, 1991 she should be paid at a rate of
#246.00 per month for working a 16 hour week.
- She should be paid an additional sum of #300 to
compensate for the period to 31st December, 1990 and
for other costs.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
------------------
March, 1991 Kevin Heffernan
B O'N/U.S. Chairman