FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TIMAC-AGRI-BUSINESS LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-053267-IR-07/MMG.
BACKGROUND:
2. The matter before the Court concerns a claim by a Worker that he has suffered financial loss by failure on behalf of the Company to pay an agreed shortfall in pension contributions.
This is denied by the Company.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 3rd June, 2008, as follows:-
"It is my opinion that the claimant did not fulfil the requirements, which would allow him to gain some benefit. this is a personal decision.
I am not satisfied that the claimant has presented a valid complaint and as such, the complaint fails."
The Worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 16th June, 2008, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th March, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union contends that the Company has not honoured an agreement to provide retrospection on pension payment to its member.
2. The Union maintains that the Company has not acted in good faith in respect of this matter, given that other workers have been treated in a more favourable manner than the Worker in question.
3. The Union stated that failing to provide retrospective payment to the pension scheme has caused genuine hardship which could be offset and relieved by a modest compensatory payment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreement made to pay the pension arrears was made on the basis of each employee agreeing to pay their portion of the amount. To date no cheque or payment has been received from the Worker . The Company is adamant that no payment will be made into the scheme without first receiving full payment from the employees concerned.
2. The original agreement was made on the basis of good industrial relations practice and as a gesture to the workforce.
3. The Company wrote to the Worker in July 2005 detailing the very specific arrangements under which the Pension arrangements would be paid.
DECISION:
The Court was told that in the course of the Rights Commissioner investigation the Company offered to make the disputed pension contribution if the Claimant paid the amount corresponding to this accrued contribution to the scheme.
In the Court's view this was a reasonable response to the Union's claim.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court is of the view that the Employer should reinstate this offer and the Claimant should accept it. The offer should be kept open for two weeks from the date of this recommendation and if it is not accepted by the Claimant, and his contribution paid within that period it should be regarded as lapsed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th April, 2009______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.