FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : G4S CASH SOLUTIONS IRELAND LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-111610-Ir-11- MH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. r-111610-ir-11-MH. The issue concerns an employee of the Company who was not paid a maternity "top-up" payment while on maternity leave.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His recommendation issued on the 14th March 2012 and did not find in favour of the worker's claim. On the 18th April, 2012 the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th October, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1.The worker was employed in 2005 and had responsibility for both Cash in Transit and clerical duties. As maternity "top ups" were provided to Clerical workers employed prior to 2008, and given her duties, the worker had a clear expectation that she would receive the payment.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENT:
4. 1. Thematernity top up payment applied only to certain Clerical staff employed prior to 2008. The worker in question was employed substantively in a position of Cash in transit with only minimal cover as a Clerical Worker. In such circumstances the payment of a maternity top up is inappropriate.
DECISION:
The appeal before the Court is on behalf of a worker against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation which found against her claim for a maternity top up payment. The Rights Commissioner found against the worker's claim on the basis that concession of the claim would have repercussive effects.
The Court notes that each category of staff employed by the Company has its own terms and conditions of employment and that maternity top up payments only apply to a specified number of clerical staff employed prior to 2008. Furthermore, the Court notes that the Appellant's substantive grade (Cash in Transit) does not include maternity top up payments. However, the Claimant who was employed in 2005 had dual responsibilities requiring her to carry out clerical duties as part of her contract of employment and, accordingly, the Court is satisfied that she had a certain expectation that she would be entitled to similar benefits as applied to clerical staff when on maternity leave.
The Court is of the view that in the Appellant's individual circumstances it was not unreasonable to have some expectation of being treated in a similar fashion to clerical staff, however, it fully accepts that her contract is silent on the issue of maternity top up benefit.
The Court is satisfied that the Appellant's circumstances are very different to others who occasionally act up in clerical duties and, accordingly, on a once off basis in all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Appellant should be compensated by the payment of a lump sum to the value of €3000 and the Company should make it clear for future reference that her contract does not provide for maternity top up.
The Court varies the Rights Commissioner's recommendation accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th December, 2012.______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.