ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00022756
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A factory worker | A factory |
Representatives | SIPTU | Unrepresented |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00029069-001 | 14/06/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/10/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or 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:
Respondent refusing to pay long service voucher and outstanding part of Labour court award |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced work with the respondent in October 2008 as a general operative. In October 2018, on the anniversary of her reaching 10 years’ service with the company she was entitled to a hotel voucher for €450. She was told by management that this would happen in due course but it never happened. From 2016 the union and the company were in discussions regarding a pay increase agreement which concluded on 2nd Jan 2019 at a labour court hearing. The Court recommended as follows; 2% from Jan 2019 2% from Jan 2020 2% from Jan 2021 An increase in the Christmas bonus to €300 from December 2019 A paid hour finished early for Christmas holidays €500 paid on acceptance of the recommendation and €500 to be paid on 1st April 2020 in lieu of backpay. Following a request from the company for clarification the Labour Court stated that employees were employed between the dates of 1st July 2016 and 31st December 2018 and subject to the original claim should get full payment, any employee who started after 1st July 2016 should get pro rata payment and any current employee who leaves the company before 1st April 2020 should not receive the second payment of €500. It is submitted that the complainant has satisfied the conditions for two payments i.e. the service reward and the first payment of €500. The company’s position as articulated to the complainant was that; in order to receive the service voucher you had to be employed at the time of the presentation and; that the complainant did not partake in the ballot on the Labour Court agreement. When the complainant reached the 10 years’ service the company would not commit to a date as to when the presentation would take place and she did not leave until 3 months later. The Labour court recommendation made no reference to this new requirement by the company that the €500 payment only related to employees who had balloted. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not appear at the hearing and made no submission |
Findings and Conclusions:
The respondent did not appear at the hearing and made no submission. I am satisfied that the respondent was notified of the hearing by letter dated 16th September 2019. Based on the uncontroverted evidence of the complainant I find that her complaint is well founded |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the respondent pay the complainant the €500 and, in addition, give her the hotel voucher to the sum of €450 |
Dated: 11/12/19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Key Words:
Non appearance by respondent. Outstanding payment under IR agreement |