EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
PW20/2015
APPEAL(S) OF:
Britvic Ireland Limited
- Appellant
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
Olive Walsh
- Respondent
under
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1991
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. P. O'Leary B L
Members: Mr M. Carr
Mr D. Thomas
heard this appeal at Dublin on 1st April 2016
Representation:
Appellant: Ms. Mairead McKenna BL instructed by:
Mr Dylan Macaulay, DM Macaulay & Co, Solicitors, Cuilin, Allies River Road, Rathmichael, Bray, Co Wicklow
Respondent: In Person
This case came before the Tribunal by way of an employer appeal of a Rights Commissioner Decision under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 reference r-146079-pw-14/RG.
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Background:
The respondent (employee) was employed in the Finance Department of the appellant company from the 8th November 2010 until her employment terminated by reason of redundancy on the 31st January 2014 being paid a gross monthly wage of €4,500.00.
The respondent was on maternity leave from the 11th February 2013 to the 18th October 2013 and authorised annual, unpaid and annual leave until the 10th December 2013.
In or around September / October 2013 some employees in the Finance Department were informed a retention bonus would be paid. This bonus was based on two elements: 50% based on staying until the end of January 2014 and 50% based on performance. This was equivalent to a maximum of three months salary subject to a maximum total bonus amount of €13,750.00.
The respondent was not paid this bonus and lodged a complaint to the Rights Commissioner under the Act on the 13th June 2014. The Rights Commissioner, having heard the facts of the matter, found in the respondent’s favour and awarded her the sum of €13,500.00 on the 13th January 2015. The appellant company appealed this decision to the Employment Appeals Tribunal on the 23rd February 2015.
Respondent’s Position:
The respondent stated that she had been replaced while on maternity leave and this person, who she had trained in, had received this retention bonus. She agreed she had not received any correspondence directly concerning this bonus but raised the matter with her Manager on her return to work following her authorised maternity, unpaid and annual leave. There was an exchange of emails but the matter remained unresolved. The respondent was made redundant on the 31st January 2014.
The respondent told the Tribunal that had she been at work and not absent on authorised leave she would have received this retention bonus.
The respondent accepted she had been paid her wages in full by the appellant company while on maternity leave. When put to her the respondent accepted the bonus offered to certain staff was an exceptional situation in the circumstances.
Appellant’s Position:
The representative for the appellant stated that this retention bonus was not offered to all staff but to 14 of the 24 staff working in the Finance Unit. This retention bonus was not offered to the respondent.
Determination:
The Tribunal have carefully considered the sworn evidence and submissions adduced during the course of this hearing.
The retention bonus in question in this matter was paid to certain employees, fourteen out of twenty four, at the discretion of the appellant company. The scheme required that certain duties in the workplace were to be performed within a specific period. The respondent employee was on maternity leave at the time and was not offered to participate in the scheme and could not have met the performance objectives during the relevant time. Therefore she would not have been eligible to receive this bonus.
The Tribunal finds the respondent was not entitled to receive the monies in question and accordingly, the Tribunal overturn the Rights Commissioner’s Decision and uphold the appeal under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)