FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ARGOS DISTRIBUTORS (IRELAND) LTD T/A ARGOS AND ARGOS EXTRA (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No: r-144999-ir-14/JT
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No: r-144999-ir-14/JT. The issue concerns a worker employed by Argos Distributors (Ireland) Ltd, trading as Argos and Argos Extra and a unilateral pay reduction imposed by Management. The Union contends that the worker was placed on a higher rate of pay than other workers on the basis of her previous experience. Management contends that the worker was identified as having been overpaid in error and Management simply rectified the situation.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 9th December 2014. The Rights Commissioner recommended that the employer was entitled to correct its error and place the worker onto the correct rate of pay. On the 23rd December 2014 the Union 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 4th March 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The Union does not accept that the worker was paid the higher rate of pay in error. The rate of pay was agreed with management on the basis of the workers previous experience and was reaffirmed on numerous occasions during the course of the employment. Essentially management unilaterally reduced the worker's rate of pay from €12.63 per hour to €11.72 per hour without her agreement. This is not acceptable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The Company changed from a manual pay system which highlighted payment errors and anomalies. Management corrected these anomalies and placed the worker on the appropriate rate of pay yet did not seek to recoup the overpayment. In the circumstances it contends it acted reasonably at all times.
DECISION:
It is clear that the Claimant and her Manager, acting on behalf of the Company, entered into an agreement in 2010 which specified the rate at which the Claimant would be paid. There is no suggestion that both parties to that agreement acted other than in good faith. That agreement was subsequently affirmed on a number of occasions over a three year period.
Against that background the Court cannot accept that what occurred could reasonably be characterised as an error.
In all the circumstances of this case the integrity of the relevant collective agreement would not be compromised by continuing to pay the Claimant at the rate originally agreed on a red circled, personal to holder basis. Accordingly, it is the decision of the Court that the Claimant be restored to her original rate of pay (as adjusted by subsequent wage increases) and that she be paid the appropriate arrears.
The calculation of the amount of arrears due is a matter to be agreed between the parties
The Union’s appeal is allowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is varied in terms of this decision
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th March 2015______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.