FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation r-128166-ir-12/JC & r-128168-ir-12/JC.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case involves a claim for the retrospective payment of the Parcel Productivity Allowance which ceased after the Claimant's promotion. This Allowance was on a personal-to-holder basis and was not the subject of a buy-out agreement. Management are opposed to awarding the allowance due in part to the possible knock-on effects for other staff.
The issue involved a claim by two Workers initially. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 4th July 2013, the Rights Commissioner issued her Recommendation as follows:-
"In all the circumstances I recommend against both of these claims"
On the 13th August one of the Workers, now retired 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 1st October 2013.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant has been fighting for the retrospection application of this Allowance for thirteen years and points out that former colleagues in similar grades have retained their Allowances with the blessing of Management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Awarding the retrospective payment would have provided the Claimant with an income much greater than that of his colleagues purely on the basis of a payment meant for basic grades.
2. An award would have knock-on effects for future claims regarding retrospection.
DECISION:
Having considered the extensive oral and written submissions together with the supplementary documents and observations submitted by each of the parties respectively the Court decides that the Claimant’s case is well-founded and decides accordingly.
The Court notes that there has been a less than consistent approach taken by different Departments within the Company regarding the payment of the Allowance in question to promoted staff. Company Representatives stated that it is actively taking steps to standardise and regularise the practice Companywide in this regard.
In this context the Court distinguishes this case from all others pending the outcome of that standardisation and regularisation process. The Court takes the view that the process should be completed within six months of the date of this Decision.
The Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation is varied accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
3rd January, 2014______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.