FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WILLSTAN RACING (IRELAND) LIMITED TRADING AS WILLIAM HILL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-108554-ir-11/JC
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was employed as a Store Manager since 1990 until her retirement in June 2011 when she reached normal retirement age at 65 years. Since 2009 a number of issues arose some of which resulted in disciplinary action been taken against her. These were disputed by the Union, however, the Company on further internal investigation confirmed that the allegations were substantiated and the disciplinary sanctions should remain.
The issues involve claims by a Worker. The matters were referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 11th November, 2011, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:-
"In all the circumstances I can find no basis upon which to recommend an extension of the claimant's retirement age or to award compensation in relation to this matter. I recommend against concession of the claims in this case."
On the 5th December, 2011 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioners 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 13th March, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Due to the passage of time none of the warnings are live at present but they should never have been issued in the first place. The Company never gave serious consideration to the Claimant's request for a postponement of her retirement date while refusing to allow her avail of a valuable redundancy package.
2. The claimant believes that she has lost out financially by the way the Company applied rules to her and not to other staff and still remains aggrieved to this day.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company took into account the Claimant's service and rather than dismissal she was issued with a final written warning. The Company treated her fairly and reasonably at both disciplinary hearings.
2. The Company at all times followed the correct procedures and sought to address any concerns raised by the Claimant.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court is an appeal by the Union on behalf of the Claimant against a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found against eight claims she had submitted under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union clarified that the appeal before the Court related firstly to a disciplinary sanction taken against the Claimant in December 2009 and secondly the refusal by the Company to allow her an extension of her employment beyond retirement age.
The Claimant submitted that she was unfairly treated by the employer and that her complaints relate to issues which have been ongoing for a number of years. In relation to the disciplinary sanction taken against her in 2009 she maintained that as part of that sanction she was moved from shop to shop. The Company told the Court that in December 2009 the Claimant was issued with a final written warning which was not appealed and as a result she was moved from its Inchicore shop to Crumlin shop. When the Claimant was not happy with the move to the Crumlin shop it then moved her to the Walkinstown and Tallaght shops.
The Claimant was due to retire on 30thJune 2011 in accordance with the Company’s Pension Scheme. On 19thMarch 2011 the Claimant applied for an extension of her employment beyond her retirement date. She was notified by letter dated 12thApril 2011 that her application was unsuccessful. The Company’s Pension Scheme stated as follows:
- “Normal Retirement Age is 65, but it is possible for members who reach Normal Retirement Age and continue in employment within the Group to remain within the Plan.”
The Court has considered the submissions made by both parties and has taken account of the details submitted orally by the Claimant herself and by both her representatives.
The Court notes that the Pension Scheme provided that an extension of employment beyond retirement date was possible under the Scheme, however, it was explicitly confirmed in 2005 ( during negotiations with the Union when a Transfer of Shares was in progress) that this provision was entirely at the Company’s discretion. This was accepted by the Union in a letter to the Company dated 22ndJune 2005. Consequently, the Union does not find in favour of her claim for an extension of employment beyond her retirement date.
The Court notes that the Claimant was a long-standing Employee, employed as a Store Manager for almost 21 years. The Claimant recounted for the Court a number of grievances and difficulties she had prior to her retirement, most of which were not before the Court. The Court is conscious that the Company closed at the beginning of 2012 and is no longer trading. Consequently, the Court can see no means of progressing the Claimant’s claims. The Court has no grounds to overturn the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation and consequently upholds her Recommendation. The appeal fails.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th April, 2012______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.