FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WINCANTON IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Company's refusal to pay training expenses as per agreement with SIPTU.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Company's refusal to reimburse him training expenses. SIPTU, on behalf of the Worker, referred this case to the Labour Court on 11th January, 2010, 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 9th March, 2011.The Company declined to attend the Hearing but did communicate its position to the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker was made redundant in 2008 after 15 years service.
2. As part of a 2006 redundancy agreement the Company agreed to reimburse redundant staff certain training expenses.
3.The Company made a unilateral and unfair decision to refuse to reimburse the Worker his training expenses.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Employer in this case decided not to attend at the hearing. However the employer did correspond with the Court outlining its position on the matters at issue.
The Court considered the contents of that letter and the submissions made by the union on the claimant’s behalf.
The Court finds that the Company acknowledged that it had entered into an agreement with the claimant to meet the costs of an ADR course and related exam fees amounting to approximately €555.00 as part of the terms of a redundancy settlement between the parties. Subsequent to the redundancies being effected the Company became aware of an earlier incident that had occurred involving the complainant that it was satisfied had not been brought to its attention. As a result of this discovery the Company decided to withhold payment of the agreed sum in respect of the ADR course and related exam.
Having examined the information available to it the Court is not satisfied that the Company properly investigated this matter. It is clear that the claimant was not given an adequate opportunity to defend himself against the accusations made against him. Furthermore there was no provision in the relevant redundancy agreement that would enable the company to withhold payment in respect of the ADR Course and related fees.
Accordingly the Court upholds the union’s claim and recommends that the claimant be paid the monies due to him in respect of the relevant course and related exam fees. The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
24th March, 2011______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.