Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93284 Case Number: AD9339 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: GAEL-LINN TEO. - and - A WORKER;GALLAGHER SHATTER, SOLICITORS |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. C.W. 192/92.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not consider
that a compelling case has been made to alter the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation. Accordingly, that recommendation
stands.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93284 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3993
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: GAEL-LINN TEO.
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY GALLAGHER SHATTER, SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. C.W. 192/92.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in
1963. She was appointed bingo administration manager in 1976 and
was paid a basic salary plus commission of 2.50% on bingo profits in
excess of #20,000 p.a.. The commission rate was increased to 3.25%
from 1980. The claimant went on maternity leave in 1983 and
resumed work in 1984. By agreement with her employer she worked a
three day week. The Company did not pay commission to the worker.
In 1987 she submitted a written claim for commission allegedly due
from 1984. Management rejected the claim. Local discussions were
held in the intervening years in an effort to resolve the issue
without success. In 1990, 1991 and 1992 the Company offered new
bonus scheme proposals plus lump sum payments to the worker. The
worker rejected the proposals. The issue was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 2nd
March, 1993, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as
follows:
"I recommend that the Company offers and the worker accepts
the sum of #5,000 in settlement of this dispute. I note that
the Company wishes the worker to return to full-time work
immediately and I consider the payment ought to be made
immediate on a full-time resumption. Should either party
decide to appeal this decision I believe that a full-time
resumption would not prejudice the matter in any way and
could be of mutual benefit to both parties".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
The worker resumed full time employment on 4th April, 1993. On
the 6th April, 1993, the claimant appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 17th May, 1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's profits have risen very substantially from
1983 to 1991. On her return to work in 1984 the worker was
paid her commission due from 1983. She made repeated requests
to management for payment of the commission, due to her. She
is entitled to this commission from 1984 to date. Although
the employee resumed work on a 3 day week, her duties were the
same as heretofore and the Company's profits increased, due in
no small part to the worker's efforts. It would be
inequitable if the Company avoided paying commission to the
worker. She estimates that the commission owed to her over
the period 1984 to date amounts to #23,395.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker resumed her duties in 1984 on different terms
and conditions. Her remuneration was reduced pro rata.
Commission was not payable because bingo profits accrue on a 7
day week basis. The Company was very anxious that the worker
resume full-time employment and put proposals to her in 1990,
1991 and 1992 which included bonus and lump sum payments
payable on the basis of a 5 day week.
2. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation of #5,000 was
excessive in the Company's view, but in the interests of good
industrial relations, management is prepared to accept and
implement the recommendation.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not consider
that a compelling case has been made to alter the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation. Accordingly, that recommendation
stands.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_____________________
20th May, 1993. Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.