Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94387 Case Number: LCR14573 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: AN BORD GLAS - and - IMPACT |
Dispute concerning the refusal by the Bord to grant an increment to a worker.
Recommendation:
Given all of the circumstances of this case, it is the
Recommendation of the Court that the increment due on the 5th
March, 1993 be paid to the worker concerned.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94387 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14573
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
AN BORD GLAS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
IMPACT
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the refusal by the Bord to grant an
increment to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Bord is a semi-state organisation which was set up
for the development of horticulture in Ireland. It
employs 7 workers at its head office. The worker
commenced a 3-year, fixed-term contract on 4th March,
1991. At the commencement of her employment the worker
was placed on the second point of the relevant salary
scale and the dispute concerns the non-payment to the
worker of an increment at the end of the second year of
her 3-year contract.
2. An incremental increase in pay was due to the worker on
4th March, 1993. Due to administrative difficulties
with the Department of Finance (details supplied), the
increment could not be paid at the time. Another worker
was similarly affected. Sanction to pay the increments
was received on 27th September, 1993.
3. The Chief Executive and the worker had a meeting on 11th
August, 1993, to discuss areas of concern about the
worker's performance (details supplied). The issues
raised at that meeting were formally put to the worker
in a memo on 6th September, 1993, and her response was
sought. The worker responded through her Union on
October 5th (details supplied). The Chief Executive
responded on October 11th to the worker stating that in
the circumstances the Bord was withholding the increment
which was due to be paid to the worker.
4. The worker was offered a new 1-year contract which was
signed on 25th February, 1994. The Union subsequently
referred the issue of the withholding of the increment
to the Rights Commissioners' Service and the Labour
Relations Commission. The Company refused to attend
either forum, contending that the dispute had been
resolved by the signing of the new contract. By letter
dated 18th July, 1994, the Union referred the dispute to
the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court investigation took
place on 19th September, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was due an increment in March 1993. The
matters which are claimed to have caused the non-payment
of the increment were not raised with the worker until
after the date on which the increment shall be paid.
2. The Bord has refused to address the worker's grievance
and is claiming that the signing of a new contract,
settles the dispute. The Union rejects this position.
The worker is the only one of her colleagues to have
been treated in this way. In terms of salary and
contract, she is disadvantaged viz a viz her colleagues.
The Union is seeking the payment of the increment from
the due date and for the revised salary to apply through
her new contract.
BORD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to considerable pressure, the Bord was forced to
offer the worker a new one-year contract which was
signed on February 25th, 1994. In signing the new
contract, the worker did not make any mention of an
outstanding claim for an increment relating to her old
contract. The Bord understood that the grievances of
the past year were now past and that the worker had
given an undertaking to co-operate fully with the
objectives of the Bord.
2. The Bord had serious difficulties with the performance
of the worker (details supplied) and contends that the
withholding of a increment was the most appropriate
sanction available at the time. The Bord has the
responsibility of applying what it believes to be an
appropriate sanction taking all the circumstances of the
case into account. The worker has now accepted by
contract a new salary and she is in breach of her new
contract by seeking to change it without using the
Company's comprehensive grievance procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
Given all of the circumstances of this case, it is the
Recommendation of the Court that the increment due on the 5th
March, 1993 be paid to the worker concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th October, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.