FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FLOMEACO ENDRESS & HAUSER LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Company profit sharing plan.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, based in Clane, Co. Kildare is involved in automation for production. The Company currently has twenty-one employees. The dispute before the Court relates to a claim by a Worker, employed by the Company as a General Office Assistant from June, 2002, until she left the employment in October, 2004, for remuneration in relation to a Company Profit Sharing Plan. The Plan involves the Company reaching or exceeding financial targets for a given year and each person employed by the Company receiving a bonus based on the profits at the end of the given year.
- The Worker contends that her contract of employment states that she is entitled to a share of the profit sharing plan;" There is also a company profit sharing plan in place, and you will qualify for it."
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that the Company Profit Sharing Plan is not part of any contract. It is a goodwill payment on behalf of the Company and employees have no legal rights to it.- On the 3rd December, 2004, the Workerreferred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th April, 2006.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
- On the 3rd December, 2004, the Workerreferred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th April, 2006.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The contract of employment did not state that if an individual left the Company before the end of end of year, that being the payment period, that the individual would no longer be entitled to a share of the profits. Employees starting late in the year received shares of profits.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The contracts do not state that all employees are entitled to a share of profits.Historically, if an individual left during the year he or she forfeited the bonus.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court is of the view that the matter should be resolved by the pro-rata payment of the sum to which the Claimant would have been entitled under the profit sharing plan, on the basis that she is entitled to share in the success of the Company for that portion of the year during which she was employed.
The Court, accordingly, recommends that she be paid the sum of €925 in full and final settlement of her claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
12th May 2006______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.