FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Non Payment of wages imposed for not adapting to "Paypath".
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the worker and Dublin City Council in relation to the witholding of wage increases. The worker's position is that the wage increases were witheld on the basis that he had not accepted transferring his salary payments to paypath. The worker contends that confusion existed with relation to his receiving notification relating to paypath. The worker further contends that he had changed address and had notified management of the changes but had not received any further correspondence from them. The worker is seeking retrospective application of the wage increases at issue.
Management's position is that the worker was aware of the requirement to accept paypath prior to his change of address and that the payments would be withheld if he did not notify them that he was willing to accept his salary payments through paypath. Management are prepared to pay the increases on the workers acceptance of paypath but are not in a position to give retrospective effect to the increases.
On the 4th February 2011, the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court 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 16th June, 2011.
The following is the Court's Recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the Claimant was fully aware that the increases in issue were conditional on cooperation with paypath. That condition was agreed between the City Council and the Trade Unions representing its staff, including the Union of which the Claimant was a member. Failure to comply with that condition entitled the City Council to withhold the increases in issue and the Court could not recommend that the outstanding monies be paid.
It is noted that the Claimant is now prepared to adopt paypath and upon him doing so the City Council are prepared to pay the disputed increases but without retrospection.
However, in the course of the hearing it emerged that the Claimant may not have been informed of deadlines for converting to paypath. If it transpires that the failure to provided this information was attributable to a fault on the part of the City Council that, in the Court's view, would constitute an exceptional circumstance which would alter the position in the Claimant's favour. The City Council should establish the position in this regard forthwith.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th July 2011______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.