FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DHL EXPRESS (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR21381/04/MR
BACKGROUND:
2. DHL Express (Ireland) Limited is engaged in the collection and delivery of parcels on a national and international basis. It operates from a number of locations throughout the country. The dispute before the Court is in relation to a worker employed as a driver in the Limerick area. The Company has introduced a new Productivity Related Pay (PRP) system for drivers some years ago. The system was based on daily targets for deliveries and collections with additional payments being made if these targets were exceeded.
- The worker joined the PRP system in September, 2003, and the Union, on behalf of its member, contends that his targets had been miscalculated and had been set too high. Utilising an internal appeals mechanism, the worker appealed his targets in October, 2003. Eventually his targets were reduced but only with effect from February, 2004. Based on the revised targets the worker had suffered a financial loss of €1,100.00 during this period. This is grossly unfair to the worker and the Union, on his behalf, is now seeking the appropriate payment with retrospection.
- The Company contends that PRP targets were phased in throughout the country for all those employees who volunteered to participate and individual targets were established based on the historic performance of each of the route runs and driver performances. When targets were established, they were implemented on a trial basis. A trial period lasted between one and three months and an appeal mechanism was available to employees who disputed their targets after the trial period. If an appeal was upheld, the implementation date for a new target was always after the trial period and review and it was never backdated.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. His findings and Recommendation issued on the 15th June, 2005, as follows:
“A period of four and a half months elapsed between the Claimant's first complaint about his original target and the company's implementation of his revised target. While this period might have been somewhat longer than applied in other cases, I am satisfied that it was a reasonable one in the circumstances. It seems to me, in fact, that the real delay involved in this case was the delay in the Claimant applying to join the scheme.
Accordingly, given that all other implementation dates under the PRP Scheme followed on earlier trial periods, I have no option but to find against the union's claim on behalf of the Claimant.
Recommendation
Accordingly, I now recommend that Mr McCarthy and SIPTU should accept that this claim fails."
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
On the 14th July, 2005, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd March, 2006.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. His findings and Recommendation issued on the 15th June, 2005, as follows:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:3. 1. The Rights Commissioner erred in judgement on this matter. In his findings he deemed that the four and a half month period between the worker's complaint and the alteration of his targets was a reasonable timeframe. The Company, during this period, received the benefits of additional productivity without making the required payments for same.
2. Based on his revised terms, the worker should have earned an additional €1,100.00 during the relevant period. The Company benefited during this time without making additional payments. This is grossly unfair and cannot be considered reasonable.
3. There is clear justification for the worker's claim and he should receive the rewards for his additional work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company applied fair procedures throughout the process and applied the same principles to the worker and all other employees who had issue with their targets. The worker submitted an appeal two weeks after he received his original target without completing a trial of reasonable duration. This demonstrates the worker to be disingenuous regarding the process.
2. The worker made earnings of €460 during the period of his initial target setting between October, 2003, and February, 2004. This is contrary to his claim that it was not possible for him to make money with such a target.The worker failed to fully utilise the appeals mechanism.
3. Concession of the worker's claim could lead to counter-claims for a large number of other employees who were similarly affected and would cost the Company a considerable amount of money. The claim is also cost-increasing.
DECISION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court considers that, taken in its totality, the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner was reasonable.
The Court accordingly upholds the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and rejects the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
13th April, 2006______________________
JO'C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.