FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : RSK IRELAND LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Payment of Overtime Rates.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned states that he was employed by the company as a grab driver during the period November,1998 to February, 1999. His employment was terminated on the 1st of February, 1999. The worker claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 4th of May, 2000 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union claims that the company failed to pay the worker his correct overtime payments for the period the 4th of January, 1999 to the 1st of February, 1999 and also that it failed to pay him his correct holiday entitlement.
The Company's position in that the worker's employment commenced on the 4th of January, 1999 and that it was terminated on the 22nd of January, 1999 because no suitable work was available to the worker.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of July, 2000. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
(1) The worker was not furnished with any written terms and conditions of employment, nor was he advised of procedures which would apply in relation to dismissal.
(2) During the week of the worker's dismissal the Company employed two new drivers which contradicts its assertion that no suitable work was available to the worker.
(3) The Union is seeking £1,520.32 in respect of overtime and holiday payments and is also seeking compensation for the loss of his employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
(1) The Company is satisfied that it has met all of its obligations to the worker in relation to his employment.
(2) A dispute arose regarding overtime worked for the week ending the 10th of January, 1999. Following agreement reached with the operations manager 10 hours basic and 19 hours overtime payment was made. The Company also paid 16 hours holiday pay on the 5th of March, 1999.
(3) No suitable work was available to the worker and the Company was left with no option but to dismiss him.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds it unsatisfactory that this dispute came before it without any prior discussions between the parties on the details of the Union's claims. In that regard the Court notes the Union's contention that the employer has previously been unwilling to meet them in direct discussions. The Court also finds it regrettable that the employer refused to attend a Rights Commissioner's investigation in a matter such as this.
The Court recommends that the parties now meet at the first available opportunity to discuss the detail of the claims, by reference to such records as are available to establish the extent of the worker's entitlement under the relevant enactments. If necessary the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission should be sought.
If the dispute remains unresolved after the expiry of one month from the date of this Recommendation, any outstanding issues may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th August, 2000______________________
FB/SH
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.