Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92395 Case Number: LCR13756 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CABINTRANS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning monies allegedly owed to the worker.
Recommendation:
4. The Court had before it for consideration the oral and written
submissions of the complainant.
The Company, through a solicitor, had expressed the view that it
was not appropriate for the Court to deal with the matter, and
that accordingly they would not be participating in the hearing.
Having considered the views of the Company, and the submissions
both oral and written of the complainant, the Court finds as
follows:
(1) A dispute or difference existed between the employer and
his employee as defined in the Industrial Relations Act.
The employee had requested an investigation of the
dispute and had agreed to accept the Recommendation of
the Court.
(2) The employee had not been paid monies due to him in
accordance with the terms and conditions of employment
under which he had been recruited.
(3) The employee had not received holiday pay due to him in
respect of holidays accrued during the period of his
employment.
The Court in the light of the above concludes that the case was
referred properly under the provisions of Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and was appropriate for
consideration by the Court.
The employee should be immediately paid such monies as are owing
to him in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment
under which he was employed on 27th May, 1991 and he immediately
be paid for the holidays which have accrued during the period of
his employment.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92395 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13756
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: CABINTRANS LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning monies allegedly owed to the worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
a driver on the 27th May, 1991. He left the employment on the
15th August, 1991. He claims that he worked a substantial amount
of overtime during the period of his employment with the Company
but was not paid for this overtime. He is also owed holiday pay
in respect of holidays accrued. The Company rejected the claim.
The worker referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation but the Company objected to such an investigation.
The worker subsequently referred the dispute to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing
was held on the 25th August, 1992. The Company did not attend the
hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker did not receive a written contract of
employment but the employer guaranteed him a basic wage of
#250 per week. In addition the employer promised to pay the
worker #10 in respect of each early start (before 7.30 a.m.)
and #10 per each late finish (after 7.00 p.m.). The worker
worked overtime consistently over the period of his employment
and estimates that his overtime earnings were #258. His final
pay cheque for #180 was cancelled by the employer because the
employer claimed that the worker owed him this amount in costs
for the recovery of a Company truck. The worker maintains
that the employer incurred no expense for the recovery of his
truck. The worker is claiming payment from the Company in the
amount of #438.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court had before it for consideration the oral and written
submissions of the complainant.
The Company, through a solicitor, had expressed the view that it
was not appropriate for the Court to deal with the matter, and
that accordingly they would not be participating in the hearing.
Having considered the views of the Company, and the submissions
both oral and written of the complainant, the Court finds as
follows:
(1) A dispute or difference existed between the employer and
his employee as defined in the Industrial Relations Act.
The employee had requested an investigation of the
dispute and had agreed to accept the Recommendation of
the Court.
(2) The employee had not been paid monies due to him in
accordance with the terms and conditions of employment
under which he had been recruited.
(3) The employee had not received holiday pay due to him in
respect of holidays accrued during the period of his
employment.
The Court in the light of the above concludes that the case was
referred properly under the provisions of Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and was appropriate for
consideration by the Court.
The employee should be immediately paid such monies as are owing
to him in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment
under which he was employed on 27th May, 1991 and he immediately
be paid for the holidays which have accrued during the period of
his employment.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________
4th September, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.