FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NEC SEMICONDUCTORS IRELAND LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR6833/01/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's case concerns the Company's refusal to implement a pay increase to the worker during 2001 because of previous disciplinary action taken against him.
In 2001, the worker was disciplined following allegations of verbal sexual harassment. A number of sanctions were taken against the worker (details supplied to the Court) but, the Union claims, they did not include non-payment of future pay increases. In the event, the worker did not receive Phase 2 of the PPF (or equivalent payments made by the Company) of 2% and 5.5%, or a performance appraisal increase due in May of up to 5%. The worker appealed the initial decision through the internal grievance procedure. At a Stage 3 grievance meeting in September 2001, the Company confirmed that the non-payment of the increases was due to the disciplinary action against the worker.
The worker referred his case to a Rights Commissioner whose recommendation is as follows:-
"Taking all the circumstances into account I see no reason to recommend any change in the outcome of the internal procedure. The salary should be reviewed again in 2002."
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 8th of May, 2002, in accordance with Section 13(9) if the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of September, 2002, in Navan.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The offence for which the worker was disciplined is separate to the payment or otherwise of pay increases due. These increases have been implemented for other employees and should be for the worker concerned.
2. There was no mention of pay increases being withheld from the worker in the Company's letter of reprimand to him. This is, in fact a double sanction against him.
3. The worker has 24 years' experience with the Company and had a very good rating in April 2001. This was the first time he had any disciplinary problems.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company viewed the worker's offence as very serious and could have taken even more serious sanctions against him.
2. The Company acted within its own procedures and the laws of natural justice in dealing with the worker's grievance.
3. The worker was informed that he would not receive any pay increase in 2001. It does not indicate an ongoing situation. No staff member was awarded a pay increase in 2002 due to a pay freeze across the Company.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the position of both sides. Having examined the written warning the Court is satisfied there was no indication that further punitive action would ensue. The Court is also of the view that to impose a wage freeze for 2001 would be tantamount to imposing a further punishment. The performance appraisal carried out indicated that an increase in pay was merited.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the appellant should be paid 8% increase in pay retrospective to May 2001.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th September, 2002______________________
CON/BG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.