PW14/2015

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

PW14/2015

APPEAL(S) OF:                                                                                                     

Neil Moore   

  (appellant)

against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:

M & J Gleeson & Co T/A C & C Gleeson                                   

  (respondent)

under

PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1991

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:       Mr. D. Mac Carthy S C

Members:      Mr. L. Tobin

                      Ms M. Mulcahy

heard this appeal at Dublin on 8th December 2016

Representation:

_______________

Appellant(s) :              Mr. James Doran B.L. instructed by Ms Helen Doyle, DM Macaulay &  Co, Cuilin, Allies River Road, Rathmichael, Co Wicklow

Respondent(s) :           Ms. Roisin Bradley, Ibec, Confederation House, 84/86 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2

The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:

This case came before the Tribunal by way of an appeal by the employee from a decision of the Rights Commissioners under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (r-139621-pw-13).

This case was heard in conjunction with UD1239/2014.

Summary of evidence

The fact of dismissal was not in dispute. The claimant commenced employment with the respondent in June 2007 as a Bond Supervisor in depot C. He worked with the respondent until he was made redundant in June 2014.

In 2009 the role of Bond Supervisor was transferred to the Keeper Road depot. The claimant transferred from depot C to Keeper Road. Soon after, the claimant was promoted to the role of Warehouse Manager in Keeper Road. In October 2012 the claimant’s Line Manager, who was also the claimant’s brother (RM) asked the claimant to move to the depot in Cherry Orchard on promotion to Logistics Manager. According to the claimant RM promised him a salary amounting to €55,000. The claimant took the promotion and told the Tribunal that this depot was known to be a problem depot with sixty staff to deal with. The claimant was working 13 hours per day, five days per week. A Mr. G took over the claimant’s role in Keeper Road.

It transpired that no pay rise was subsequently forthcoming and in September 2013 RM told the claimant he would not be receiving an increase in salary as the whole operation was under review due to new ownership.

On 11^th March 2014, staff were informed that the company was consolidating its Dublin

Operations to the Keeper Road depot. As such the Cherry Orchard depot would be closing with 17 redundancies, including the claimant’s position. The claimant was informed of alternative roles available and the deadline of 26^th March 2014 was extended to facilitate the claimant in relation to any alternate position he would like to apply for.   The claimant applied for the role of General Operative but as his application was received after the extended deadline, the respondent informed him that his late application could not be accepted.  

The respondent denied that the claimant was unfairly selected for redundancy.

Determination

In our view the discussions between the two brothers did not amount to a contractual agreement. Therefore the Tribunal cannot find that he was entitled to the salary of €55,000 which he now claims.

Even if there had been such a contractual obligation the claimant continued to work for 21 months without the salary increase and the time limit for bringing a claim under the Payment of Wages Act is six months. The Tribunal must uphold the finding of the Rights Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)