FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OPW - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Payment of wages.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the delayed payment of the Worker's wages and his non-payment for a Public Holiday. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 12th June, 2014, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th November, 2014.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer failed to comply with its obligation to pay the Worker on time.
2. This failure caused the Worker considerable upset and embarrassment.
3.The Worker had a reasonable expectation that he would be paid for the Easter Public Holiday in question.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer apologises for the delay in paying the Worker.
2. The Employer will ensure that this does not happen again in the future.
3. The Employer received his full Public Holiday entitlements and was paid in accordance with the provisions of the Working Time Act and his contract of employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court recommends as follows:-
Late Payment of Wages
The Court notes that the OPW has apologised for the late payment of wages in this case. The Court also notes that its assurances that steps have been taken to ensure that wages will in future be paid on time.
The Court recommends that the Claimant, in full and final settlement of this dispute, accepts the apology offered and the assurances given in the course of the Court Hearing into the matter.
The Court so recommends.
Easter Monday Arrangement 2013
The Court finds that the Claimant had a reasonable expectation that the working arrangements for Easter Monday 2013 would be no different to those that applied in previous years as he was not notified of the decision to bring them into line with his contract of employment with effect from that year.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the OPW allows the Claimant the premium arrangements he would have been benefitted from had the change not been effected that day.
The Court notes that future Public Holidays will dealt with as set out in the Claimant’s contract of employment.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
21st November, 2014______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.