EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
Claremorris Tourism Limited
T/A McWilliam Park Hotel - appellant PW417/2013
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
Fergal Ryan - respondent
under
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1991
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Dr. A. Courell B.L.
Members: Mr. D. Morrison
Mr M. McGarry
heard this appeal at Castlebar on 23rd April 2015
Representation:
Appellant(s) :
Mr John Barry, Management Support Services, The Courtyard, Hill Street, Dublin 1
Respondent(s) :
Mr. Alastair Purdy, Purdy Fitzgerald Solicitors, Kiltartan House, Forster Street, Galway
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
This case came before the Tribunal by way of the employer appealing the decision of a Rights Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 reference R-130271-pw-13.
Summary of Evidence
The respondent (employee) was employed by the appellant from June 2006 to November 2012. He worked in the role of general manager. He successfully ran the hotel for six and a half years. The respondent’s contract included bonus payment which was conditional on meeting performance targets. The respondent gave evidence that he met the targets for the period in dispute. He was due to receive a bonus payment of €10,000 for the period 2012 up to the ending of his employment.
Budget figures were put to the respondent under cross examination which he stated he had not previously seen. The respondent was never made aware of changes to the targets. He submitted that he prepared rolling quarterly budget figures with the financial controller which were then altered and presented to the board by the accountant.
The managing director of the appellant company (DP) gave evidence to the Tribunal. The company operated on the basis that the general manager work with the financial controller preparing budget figures which were then presented to the board of directors who could accept or reject proposed figures. The witnesses submitted that the respondent did not meet the targets for turnover in 2012. It was a period of difficult and challenging trading conditions. DP accepted that the respondent had set the quarterly budgets and for that reason should have been fully aware that targets were not reached.
Determination
The Tribunal have considered the evidence submitted by both parties in this case. The Tribunal accept the respondent’s evidence that he was never informed of any change to his bonus targets and is satisfied that he is entitled to his bonus payment.
The appeal under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 fails and the decision of the Rights Commissioner is upheld.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)