FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MITIE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - THREE NAMED WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation r-134247-ir-13/RG, r-134250-ir-13/RG & r-134252-ir-13/RG.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim for incremental pay progression. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 11th December, 2013 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- Mr AM should be placed on the rate of €13.15 effective from 15th April 2012 and onto the rate of €13.68 effective from 15th April 2013.
Mr SJ should be placed on the rate of €13.15 effective from 26th July 2012 and onto the rate of €13.68 effective from 26th July 2013.
Mr SW should be placed on the rate of €13.15 effective from 29th March 2012 and the rate of €13.68 effective from 29th March 2013.
On the 9th January, 2014 the Employees appealed the Rights Commissioner's 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 4th March, 2014.UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Employer has not paid the Workers incremental pay increases which apply to all Emergency Response Team members on the Diageo site.
2.The Workers were informed that should they produce the relevant information then they would be paid the claimed amounts. They have produced the relevant documentation in support of the claim, however, the Employer has not agreed to pay.
3.The failure to apply the incremental pay rates has resulted in a severe loss in earnings.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company is not in a position to apply incremental pay scales in the absence of any formally signed document containing such particulars.
2.The Union cannot identify the person that actually negotiated the alleged scales.
3.THe claim cannot be met in the absence of an officially signed document.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds on the balance of probabilities that the Claimants were employed on a salary scale as outlined to the Court.
The Court decides therefore that the Claimants, on a personal-to-holder basis, are entitled to progress along the salary scale to the maximum point.
The Court further decides that the claimants be placed on the scale as follows
Name Salary Effective date
Mr AM €13.15 15 April 2012
€13.68 15 April 2013
€14.36 15 April 2014
Mr SJ €13.15 26 July 2012
€13.68 26 July 2013
€14.36 26 July 2014
Mr SW €13.15 29 March 2012
€13.68 29 March 2013
Noting the level of retrospection involved in this case the Court decides that Mr AM and Mr SJ be paid the relevant amount due to each respectively in two moieties as follows
1. First moiety to be paid at Easter 2014.2. Second moiety to be paid on the first pay day in January 2015.
The Court decides that Mr SW be paid the full amount outstanding to him at Easter 2014.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
3rd April, 2014______________________
CO'RDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.