FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MUNSTER JOINERY - AND - EUGENE FARRELLY (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00002461.
BACKGROUND:
2. BACKGROUND:
This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 9th August 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- "The parties should engage within 2 months from the date of this decision to discuss relevant matters, including commission and car. In the event of the respondent failing to engage, then the respondent is to pay the claimant the sum of €5000 as a compensation for loss of commission”.
The Employee appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 20th September 2016 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th November 2016.
DECISION:
Background to the Dispute
The Worker has been employed as a sales representative by the Respondent for some 20 years. The dispute relates to the Respondent’s decision to unilaterally change the basis on which the Worker earned commission on his sales, resulting in a considerable drop in income for him. The original written agreement between the parties provided that the Respondent would pay the Worker 2% on site sales and 3% on one-off house sales.
The Worker attended at the hearing of this appeal accompanied by his trade union representative, Mr Oliver McDonagh. The Respondent failed to attend. Mr McDonagh subsequently supplied the Court with comprehensive written schedule of the reduction in commission payments received by the Worker. This schedule indicates that the Worker calculates that he was left short of €6,819.00 in commission payments for the period November 2014 to October 2015 as consequence of the Respondent’s unilateral decision to alter the method by which sales commission is calculated.
The Union also submits that the Worker should be supplied with a company van in order to complete his work. The Respondent, it appears, offered to provide him with a car. However, this was not accepted by the Worker because of the Benefit-in-Kind implications it would have for him.
Recommendation
The Court recommends that the Respondent pay the Worker compensation of €6,819.00 in respect of the reduction in his commission earnings for the period November 2014 to October 2015. Furthermore, the Court recommends that the Respondent should re-apply the agreed method of calculating commission on the Worker’s sales pending reaching an agreement with him regarding an alternative method of calculating commission on sales.
The Court further recommends that the parties should engage again in relation to the provision of a suitable company vehicle to the Worker.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CO'R______________________
12 January, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.