ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007381

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/01/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in 2005. Until February 2017, the Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a steel cleaner. The Respondent operates a bonus structure for each portion of a job which is allocated to the Complainant which results in the Complainant being entitled to a bonus payment. The Respondents bonus scheme is based on a set amount of time allocated to complete a particular task. On meeting the target, the Complainant would be entitled to a 35% bonus payment.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was issued with the card for specific job but discovered he was not able to complete the task in the time allocated to him. The Complainant argued that it was always a struggle to complete the job due to insufficient time allocated by the Respondent.

The Complainant was entitled, as per their union/employer agreement, to ask for a work study to ascertain if it was feasible to complete this task on time. The Complainant and other colleagues regularly appealed to the Respondent to have a time study done on this task as they felt the current time allocated was not reasonable nor fair and so thus, it was impossible to complete the job within the time frame allocated.

The Complainant approached his Shop Steward (SS) and Union Chairperson (UC) who in turn had a meeting with the Respondent. Following protest from the Complainant and after a long struggle the Respondent agreed to conduct a time study and found the job warranted more time which proved the Complainant was correct in that the due time allocated for the task was incorrect. The result of the work study yielded an increase in time should be allocated for completing the particular task.

Following the time study which proved the time allocation for the task was incorrect, the Respondent refused to pay the Complainant his bonus to which he would have been entitled to if the time allocation for the task was correct to begin with. The Complainant is seeking payment of his bonus with retrospection for the loss of his bonus of approximately €375.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent stated that no internal appeal occurred prior to the WRC case been taken as per scheme guidelines agreed by the Respondent and the Union. The Respondent stated that there is no guarantee of the bonus and that it is performance based. The Respondent outlined the bonus system and explained that it is based on time standards.

Findings and Conclusions:

Section 13 (1) and (2) of Industrial Relations Act, 1990 states the below.

13.— (1) The Minister may from time to time appoint a person who shall be known as and is in this Act referred to as a rights commissioner to carry out the functions assigned to him by this section.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.

(3) (a) Subject to the provisions of this section, a rights commissioner shall investigate any trade dispute referred to him under subsection (2) of this section and shall, unless before doing so the dispute is settled—

(i) make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth his opinion on the merits of the dispute, and

(ii) notify the Court of the recommendation.

(b) A rights commissioner shall not investigate a trade dispute—

(i) if the Court has made a recommendation in relation to the dispute, or

(ii) if a party to the dispute notifies the commissioner in writing that he objects to the dispute being investigated by a rights commissioner.

This dispute is in relation to a bonus is 35% of wages which was a total of €375 gross of a loss of the weeks in June 2016 because the Complainant did not receive the bonus. The oral evidence presented suggested by the Complainant and his representative is that they exhausted the internal mechanisms to get the matter resolved.

The Complainant stated that after this time, the time study took place and he received his bonus thereafter in line with the new target.

Decision:

Section 13(1) and (2) of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 – 2015 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. I would like to reiterate the requirement to exhaust the internal appeals mechanisms per the agreed procedures with the Respondent Company and the union. Based on the oral evidence presented this seems to have been the case on this occasion. However, a paper trail is recommended to be kept to prove this fact going forward prior to progressing a dispute to the WRC.

I recommend that the Complainant receive the gross amount of €375 for outstanding bonus. This recommendation does not set precedence for any other future disputes.

Dated:   10 April 2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery