FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : JOHN CRANE IRELAND LTD - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-136768-ir-13/MH
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-136768-ir-13/MH. The issue concerns a claim by the worker that he should have been awarded an additional 5 days' annual leave in accordance with the terms of the attendance bonus scheme having attained the required perfect attendance over 10 years. Management contends that the worker did not have the required perfect attendance to qualify for the additional leave. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 22nd May 2014 and on the uncontested evidence of the worker awarded him the 5 days' additional leave in compliance with the attendance bonus scheme. On the 29th May 2014, the employer 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 17th September 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker did have the required 10 years perfect attendance in order to qualify for the additional leave. The single day in question (1st October 2004) that the worker was absent was in fact a "floating day " off which he had requested, had taken off but was not paid for. At the time, due to high levels of overtime it was not immediately clear to the worker that he had not been paid for the day.
2 In January 2005 the worker was credited with payment for two days leave that had not been taken in 2004. One of these days related to the 1st October 2004 which was the floating day that had been applied for but not processed. Apart from the one day in question the worker had 15 years perfect attendance. On the basis of Management's error and the worker's exemplary record the additional 5 days' leave should be granted.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The worker did not have the 10 years' perfect attendance in order to qualify for the additional 5 days leave. There was an unauthorised absence on 1st October 2004 which the employer does not accept was a floating day allegedly applied for but not processed. The terms of the attendance bonus scheme are clear and unfortunately the worker did not qualify for the additional leave.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Employer against a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which recommended that the Claimant should be awarded an extra five days’ annual leave. The Claimant’s claim before the Rights Commissioner concerned a dispute regarding the alleged failure to grant him the extra leave in accordance with the Company’s policy on perfect attendance.
The Employer did not attend before the Rights Commissioner for reasons which were explained to the Court. It submitted that the Claimant did not have the required perfect attendance for the years to be eligible for the five extra days’ leave. It stated that while the Claimant had a perfect record from 2005 onwards, he missed one day on 1stOctober 2004, for which he was not paid, thereby failing to reach the target. The Claimant dispute the Employer’s contention and stated that this day was recorded as an unpaid absence in error, he had applied for a Floating Day for 1stOctober 2004, but this application had not been processed.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court notes from the payslips submitted by the Claimant that he was deducted one day’s pay for 1stOctober 2004. The Court has not been provided with sufficient evidence to substantiate the Claimant’s contention that this deduction was in error and rectified some months later. On that basis the Court must find against the Claimant and uphold the Employer’s appeal. Therefore the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is overturned.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th October 2014______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.