FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : P.J. CARROLL & CO. - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged money owed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a Van Driver with the Company for 30 years, he retired upon reaching 65 years of age in June 2001. In January 2004 a Labour Court Recommendation LCR 17733 was issued on a claim in respect of a "50 hours issue" pertaining to Van Drivers employed with the Company. The Worker is claiming that as part of the Recommendation that he should be entitled to a pro rata amount of the final settlement reached between the Company and the Union in 2004. The Company rejects this.
The claim could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. The worker referred his claim to the Labour Court on the 14th June, 2005 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th August, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Prior to the worker's retirement, he was involved in negotiations with regard to issue of hours affecting Van Drivers.
2. It is the workers understanding that he had been promised by Management that he would qualify for a pro rata payment when the claim was finally resolved by the company prior to his retirement.
3. The worker has insisted that he was always part of the claim and had been equally affected by the shortfall as any of the other drivers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company rejects the claim as it is without merit and hence justified.
2. The worker retired from the Company in 2001 at the age of 65 as in line with Company policy.
3. The Van Driver issue that was the subject of LCR 17733 issued in January 2004 was first brought to the Labour Relations Commission in February 2003, 18 months after the worker's retirement.
4. The Company rejects that any promise was ever made to the worker regarding the claim prior to his retirement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has not been able to satisfactorily establish the true historical facts of this matter.
While, on the balance of probabilities, the facts as established do not seem to support the claimant's case, nevertheless the Court agrees that he has a long held sense of expectation, whether justified or not, around the question of benefits arising from Labour Court Recommendation LCR 17733. However, the Court does not consider any benefits should flow from this Recommendation to the claimant.
The Court recommends that the matter be finally disposed of by the payment, in this unique situation, of an ex-gratia sum of €650 to the claimant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
22nd August, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.