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 Commissioner Recommendation Nos: r-128166-ir-12/JC and r-128168-Ir-12/Jc
BACKGROUND:
2. This case in an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner Recommendation Nos: r-128166-ir-12/JC and r-128168-Ir-12/Jc. The issue concerns a claim by the worker for the retrospective application of a Parcel Productivity Allowance which the Company ceased paying to him on his promotion to the Team Leader grade. Management's position is that there is a collective industrial relations process in place and that this claim should form part of that process.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 4th July 2013 and did not find in favour of the worker's claim. On 12th August 2013 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 3rd June 2014.
WORKER'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The worker is justified in seeking the retrospective application of the Allowance. There are several comparable employees who have retained the Allowance on promotion yet it has ceased for the Claimant in this case.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The issue of the Productivity Allowance is currently being dealt with as part of a collective industrial relation process. It is appropriate that this claim be encompassed by the process currently in place.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court notes that the Company is engaged in talks with the relevant Trade Union to standardise and regularise the Allowance at issue. The Court was told that its preferred option is to discontinue the Allowance. The Trade Union, the Court was told, takes issue with that approach.
The Court understands that whatever the outcome of those talks the Company undertakes to comprehend this claim within the terms of settlement that finally emerge.
The Court notes that it is the Company’s intention to bring those talks to a conclusion within a reasonable timescale.
In that context, and in line with the Court’s Decision in Appeal Decision No AD14105, the Court decides that this claim should be comprehended in the terms of
settlement that emerge from that process.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is varied accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
25th June 2014______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.