FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NETIQ/ATTACHMATE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-048986-Ir-07.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker joined the Company in September 2002 as a technical support engineer until he availed of a Voluntary Redundancy package on the 12th July, 2006 and signed a Discharge Form in full and final settlement between the parties. The dispute concerns the existence or otherwise of a binding verbal agreement to pay an additional €2,000 in college fees on behalf of the Worker.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 5th September, 2007 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"Having considered the submissions of the parties I am of the opinion that the claimant did honestly believe that the commitment received from the Technical Support Manager amounted to a guarantee of his 2006/2007 fees. It is common case that the matter would require the sanction of authorities in the USA and therefore the claimant was mistaken in his view. Accordingly I find for the respondent.
However I am mindful of the fact that the respondent took an inordinate amount of time to finalise matters and did so on foot of a letter from the claimant's solicitors adding in my view to the claimant's indignation and erroneous belief.
In the circumstances I recommend that the respondent pay the claimant the sum of €500 in recognition of the previous good relationship between the parties and in an effort to achieve an amicable resolution."
On the 20th September, 2007 the Worker 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 12th December, 2007.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. College fees for the previous three years were paid by the Company, the Director of Worldwide Technical Support promised he would source the funding for fees due for the year 2006/2007 when next he was at the Company's Headquarters in the USA.
2. This verbal agreement was witnessed by the HR Manager and it was she who first suggested that the matter would require the sanction of the Corporation in the USA. At this point the Director made a dismissive gesture towards the HR Manager and said "we'll do it".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant was not promised payment of College fees for the year 2006/2007 but he was allowed to keep his laptop.
2. The Claimant signed the Discharge Form in the full knowledge that it was a full and final settlement between the parties.
DECISION:
It appears to the Court that this dispute arose from a misunderstanding between the parties as to what the Company had committed to in respect of the Claimant's college fees. It is, however, clear that the agreement reached and acknowledged by the Claimant in the discharge which he signed did not contain any provision to pay these fees.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court believes that the conclusions reached by the Rights Commissioner are in accordance with the facts of the case and are fair and reasonable.
Accordingly, the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th January, 2007.______________________
JF.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.