FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PAS TECHNOLOGIES IRELAND LTD - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-136206-ir-13/JOC.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal of Rights Commissioner's RecommendationR-136206-IR-13/JOC.The dispute relates to the Worker's claim that he entered into a legitimate contract with the Respondent in January 2010 and has been misled by them from the outset regarding reviews and that they subsequently reneged on it completely The Employer rejects the Worker's claim arguing that the Worker signed a contract of employment, in which he had agreed to be bound by the "Terms and Conditions of Employment" and those contained in Agreements made on my behalf between the Trade Union and the Company from time to time". On the12thDecember 2013, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"Both parties made written and verbal submissions at the hearing and considered the matter. I find that concession of the claimant's claim would have a knock on effect in so far it has the potential to effect the Terms and Conditions of Employment. However, I find the claimant signed a contract of employment which states;
"I accept and agree to be bound by the above Terms and Conditions of Employment and those contained in Agreements made on my behalf between the Trade Union and the Company from time to time.
Recommendation
Based on the evidence submitted I cannot support the claimant's claim and recommend that it be rejected"
On the4thMarch, 2014 the Worker 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 the10thSeptember,2014.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The Worker only became aware of a change to his terms and conditions of employment on the9thday of November 2012 when he was informed by his Employer.
2. The Trade Union was not aware of the written variation to the Worker's contract of employment at the time of negotiating and concluding the Conciliation Agreement with the Company. Thus, it is submitted that the Trade Union could not have been making a contract on behalf of the Worker when it did not know the actual contractual position between the Worker and the Employer.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1.Each of the Claimant's contracts expressly state the following clause on their signing page"I accept and agree to be bound by the above Terms and Conditions of Employment and those contained in Agreements made on my behalf between the Trade Union and the Company from time to time".
2.It is not open to either the Worker or the Company to change the terms of the collective agreement once it has been agreed and implemented.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds that the Claimant’s pay and conditions of employment were governed by the terms of a Collective Agreement concluded with the relevant Trade Union for that grade of staff. That Agreement provided that, in the interests of equity, all workers covered by the Agreement would be treated in an identical manner when their shift patterns changed to their financial disadvantage. In this case the Complainant’s shift pattern was so changed. The Company continued to pay him a shift rate though he was no longer required to work the shift pattern associated with that rate. When this arrangement was discovered it was brought in line with the relevant Agreements in place for that category of worker. The Complainant is seeking to elevate a personal agreement that was concluded with an individual manager without the express approval of the Company above the Collective Agreement. The Court would see some merit in that position if the Company had delayed in correcting this anomaly when it was brought to its attention. However, the Company acted with due speed and restored the terms of the Collective Agreement when the anomaly was brought to its attention.
Accordingly, the Court finds no merit in the appeal and upholds the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
7th October, 2014______________________
CO'RDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.