FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KINGSPAN ENVIRONMENTAL (IRELAND) LTD T/A TITAN ENVIRONMENTS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-144058-ir-14/EOS
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-144058-ir-14/EOS. The issue concerns a claim for the payment of a "finishing allowance." Management contends that the allowance is payable when the worker is assigned to a job that attracts the allowance but as he is not assigned in the finishing role, he does not qualify for payment of the finishing allowance.The Union is seeking that the allowance in question (€17.50 per week) be reinstated to the worker as it was paid to him in recognition of his skills and experience and was paid irrespective of the time spent working in the finishing role.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 25th March 2015 and did not find in favour of the worker's claim. On the 20th April 2015, 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 22nd September 2015.
UNION ARGUMENT:
3 1 The allowance was paid to the worker for many years. Management subsequently changed the payment method of the finishing allowance from €17.50 per week to €3.50 per day while assigned to the finishing role. These changes were made without written confirmation to the worker and were not agreed to by him. The Union is seeking that the payment be restored as was the custom and practice within in the employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The allowance is payable per day to workers assigned to the finishing role. At the material time the worker was not involved in the finishing role and had no entitlement to be paid the allowance. Management cannot concede the Union's claim as it would have repercussive effect and would lead to unsustainable costs to the Company.
DECISION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute, the Court finds that the Claimant is being treated in the same manner as all other members of staff and accordingly does not find a basis for setting aside or varying the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
12th October 2015______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.