FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1969 PARTIES : PAGE INNS LIMITED T/A VALLENCE AND MCGRATH - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Alleged non-payment of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Union's claim, on behalf of one worker, for payment of the 2nd Phase (5.5% increase) due under the PPF, and the 2% increase and 1% lump sum payment due under the revised terms of the PPF. Local level discussions were unsuccessful. On 3rd January, 2003, the Union referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 3rd April, 2003. Subsequent to the hearing further information was submitted by both parties which was considered by the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At local discussions the Company stated that, because the claimant did not request payment of the PPF terms, it was, therefore, not required to pay those increases. This is not acceptable and, as a member of the Licensed Vintners Association (LVA), the Company is obliged to pay the PPF terms on the dates of implementation.
2. In a dispute before the Court in January, 2002, between MANDATE and the LVA regarding the 2% PPF increase and the 1% lump sum, the Court recommended that the LVA pay the 2% increase with effect from 1st April, 2001 (LCR17056) refers. The recommendation was accepted by the LVA.
3. The Company has not indicated at any stage, either to the Union or to the LVA, that it is pleading "inability to pay" under Clause 7 of the PPF.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is a small family owned and run business. The Company treated the worker fairly and adhered to whatever agreements were made between the LVA and the Union, to the best of its ability.
2. The Company increased the worker's gross pay from €419 in June, 2000 to €549.87 in June, 2002.
3. The Company made a payment of €1840 to the worker in August, 2002 (the equivalent of four weeks' net pay) on foot of a demand on sick pay from the Union. The worker was entitled to €230, under the 1973 Company Union agreement on sick pay, as he had submitted a sick cert for one week only. This is an overpayment of €1,610 which the Company could ill afford and which should be refunded.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of both parties and has examined in detail the increases in pay granted to the worker during the period for which the Union has submitted its claim. In all the circumstances of this case and to address the apparent short payments due under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, the Court recommends that he should be paid a sum of €500 in full and final settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th May, 2003______________________
TODCaroline Jenkinson
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.