FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AVIVA INSURANCE LTD (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY WORKPLACE SOLUTIONS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-141730-IR-14/DI.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-141730-IR-14/DI. The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim that he suffered a financial loss when the car allowance he received upon promotion to a higher position was not consolidated into his basic pay and recognised as such for pension purposes. It is the Worker's contention that prior to his promotion he was in receipt of a car allowance which was added to his basic salary. Upon promotion, the Worker received a pay increase and an increase in his car allowance. However, the increased car allowance no longer formed part of his basic salary and was not recognised for the purpose of pension calculations. The Worker asserts that he was therefore paid the incorrect salary upon promotion. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim, arguing that he received the correct salary when he was promoted to a higher position within the Company. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 12th November 2014, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows.
"In the circumstances I find against the Claimant's claim as he had been promoted from the Level D position prior to the date of the consolidation of the car allowance into pensionable salary".
On the 17th December, 2014 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th February, 2015.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker was paid an incorrect salary when he was promoted to a higher post.
2. The Worker contends that he has incurred significant financial losses stemming from the incorrect salary payment.
3. The Worker asserts that he was treated in an inequitable manner as a result of the Employer's failure to properly investigate the grievances he raised.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker was remunerated correctly at all times.
2. The Employer maintains that the Worker was provided with the opportunity to further increase his earnings as a result of his promotion.
3. The Employer contends that the Worker was treated fairly and equitably at all times.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Claimant against a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found against his claim that he had been disadvantaged in terms of his pensionable pay when he was promoted to a Level E position on 1stJanuary 2013.
The Claimant had been on Level D terms and conditions of employment and on 22ndDecember 2012 he was offered the higher level position. The Company announced a change to Level D conditions on 12thDecember 2012 to take effect from 1stJanuary 2013, which entailed the replacement of company cars with the consolidation of a car allowance into basic salary and thereby making it a pensionable emolument. The Claimant claimed that the Level D consolidated salary should be applied to him before application of the Level E terms and conditions of employment, thereby increasing his pensionable salary.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court notes that the proposed change to the Claimant’s conditions of employment notified to him on 12thDecember 2012, had not taken effect by the time he was offered the promotional position and by the time he had commenced such a role and accordingly the Level D consolidated salary never actually applied to him. The Court is satisfied that on promotion the Claimant was paid the appropriate Level E salary and associated benefits and accordingly his pensionable salary was accurately calculated.
Therefore the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation and the Court rejects the Claimant’s appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th March 2015______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.