FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH ROLLASHADES LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR12393/02/GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute involves a claim by a worker employed by the Company for over 20 years regarding a pension scheme. As the matter could not be resolved locally, it was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 2nd July, 2004, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
- “I am recommending that the claimant accept the Company offer to contribute the 5% suggested from February 2003. I am advising the claimant to commit himself fully to the terms his contract suggests as factory foreman, and the requirements regarding the overtime payments up until December 2004, when I am recommending the matter be reviewed. The intention being the creation of an appropriate pension scheme operational from that date".
- On the 24th July, 2004 the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on the grounds that the recommendation erred on facts and that the recommendation was unclear. The worker resigned from the Company in September, 2004 to take up another position.
The employer’s representative stated in a letter to the Court that the Company would not be attending the hearing as the worker had resigned from the Company to take up employment elsewhere. The letter also states “as the worker is no longer employed by the Company, the matter of his pension is accordingly closed". A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th January, 2005.
- On the 24th July, 2004 the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on the grounds that the recommendation erred on facts and that the recommendation was unclear. The worker resigned from the Company in September, 2004 to take up another position.
WORKERS ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The worker contends that the terms of his contract were broken by not making a pension scheme available to him, and refusing to contribute to any such scheme.
2. The worker stated that he was informed by the Company that they were not in a financial position to provide a pension contribution, but he maintains that profits were made and provision was made in the Company accounts for pension contributions.
3. Other members of management/salaried staff with less years service than the worker are included in a pension scheme.
DECISION:
The employer declined to attend the Court hearing into this appeal but did communicate with the Court by letter.
Having considered the submission of the claimant and having taken account of the position of the employer as set out in the correspondence, the Court is of the view that the 5% pension contribution recommended by the Rights Commissioner should be effective from 1st January 2001.
As the claimant has since left the employment, the question of a review of his pension position in December, 2004 does not now arise. Consequently, this aspect of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be set aside.
The rights Commissioner's recommendation is amended accordingly and the Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th January, 2005______________________
JB
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.