FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUNNES STORES - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Hearing arising from LCR18284.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed with the Company since July, 2000. In October 2004 the worker discovered that a colleague she had trained in was on a higher rate of pay. The Company subsequently rectified the error and issued a new contract. However, the Company failed to pay the retrospection of the grade she was on and the grade of her colleague over the three year period.
The matter was referred to the Labour Court and in August, 2005 the Court recommended that the Union formally serve the claim on the Company indicating the amount being claimed and await the Company response. On 10th August, 2005 the Union wrote to the Company advising them of the amount of retrospection due which they have calculated to be in the amount of €5555.84. The Company in response claimed that the worker was correctly paid.
On 1st September, 2005 the Union referred the matter back to the Court for a re-hearing 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 29th March, 2006.
The Company issued a letter advising the Court that they would not be in attendance at the hearing and would not be sending in a submission. They also stated that in their view the worker had been paid her proper wage at all times and was not entitled to any additional payments.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.In calculating the retrospection due to the worker we have taken account of the additional amount due in the hourly rate based on the correct point of the scale as opposed to the lower point of the scale which was originally applied to the worker. Account has also been taken of the Sundays and Public Holidays worked during the period and also the level of Christmas bonus which is related to the level of pay of the individual.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds it regrettable that the Company declined to attend the hearing or otherwise communicate with the Court in relation to this claim.
Having heard the submission of the Union the Court accept that the arrears of pay claimed are due and owing to the claimant. The Court recommends that the amount due be paid. Should the Company dispute the amount as calculated by the Union the parties should meet to resolve the matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th April, 2006______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.