Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93260 Case Number: AD9341 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SHANNON DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner Recommendation No. C.W. 62/93 concerning claim for loss of travelling expenses.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions takes the view that
the worker concerned should be paid in respect of (a) holidays due
and (b) certain car costs he would have expected to be reimbursed
during his period of notice.
The Court considers that both these elements are adequately
covered by the amount of #1,200 recommended by the Rights
Commissioner and it is the decision of the Court that this amount
be paid in full and final settlement of the above elements.
With regard to the claim for outstanding expenses this issue was
not before the Rights Commissioner. It would seem however that
the payment of expenses is a matter of record and that given
reasonableness and goodwill the parties in direct discussion
should be able to resolve this matter.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93260 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4193
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SHANNON DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner
Recommendation No. C.W. 62/93 concerning claim for loss of
travelling expenses.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is based in Dublin is involved in the
distribution of toys, souvenirs and giftware. The worker
concerned commenced employment with the Company in June, 1992 as a
sales manager. On his appointment to the position the worker
purchased a new car to enable him to carry out his duties which
involved travelling outside Dublin for which he was paid 22p. per
business mile.
In February, 1993, the worker gave the Company 3 months' notice of
his intention to resign from his position. The worker claims
that, on giving his notice, the Company immediately sent him on
paid leave which prevented him from carrying out his travelling
duties which normally yielded him the sum of #470 per month. The
Company rejected the claim.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation
and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner on 31st March, 1993,
recommended as follows:
"I recommend that the Company offers and the worker accepts
the sum of #1,200 in settlement of this dispute".
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed to the
Labour Court by both parties. The Labour Court heard the appeal
on 18th May, 1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker stands to lose a considerable amount of money
on the car he purchased on taking up his position with the
Company.
2. It will be necessary for the worker to take out a term
loan from the bank to enable him pay for the loss.
3. There was no question of a Company car when the worker was
interviewed for the position.
4. No expenses in advance were paid to the worker on taking
up his position.
5. The worker lost a considerable amount of money for which
he should be compensated when the Company denied him his right
to work his notice. The worker is also due 2 weeks holiday
pay in respect of his period of employment with the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker concerned was appointed he requested that
he be allowed use his own car for Company business. The
Company agreed to his request although it was Company policy
to supply its sales personnel with a Company car.
2. The Company did not agree that a minimum or fixed amount
of mileage would be undertaken. The amount of mileage
undertaken depended on the journey plan and the business
conditions at any given time.
3. The Company's liability was 22p. per business mile and any
difference between this amount and the amount of the worker's
fixed car costs are a matter for the worker concerned.
4. As far as the Company is concerned the figure of 22p. per
mile was to reimburse the worker for the use of his car for
business purposes and there should be no profit as a result of
this arrangement.
5. Most of the period of the worker's employment was spent
learning the business at considerable cost to the Company.
6. The worker resigned from his job. The Company paid him in
full for the 3 months period of his notice to afford him the
opportunity to seek alternative employment.
7. It is unacceptable that the worker should expect the
Company to pay expenses during the period of paid leave when
no travelling on behalf of the Company was undertaken.
DECISION:
5. The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions takes the view that
the worker concerned should be paid in respect of (a) holidays due
and (b) certain car costs he would have expected to be reimbursed
during his period of notice.
The Court considers that both these elements are adequately
covered by the amount of #1,200 recommended by the Rights
Commissioner and it is the decision of the Court that this amount
be paid in full and final settlement of the above elements.
With regard to the claim for outstanding expenses this issue was
not before the Rights Commissioner. It would seem however that
the payment of expenses is a matter of record and that given
reasonableness and goodwill the parties in direct discussion
should be able to resolve this matter.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
14th June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.