Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Technician

An Airline

Representatives

 FORSA

In House Legal Department

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-00018335-001

06/04/2018

The issues in dispute in this case centre on the determination of the correct rate of pay on which to determine an Income Continuance payment

On the 5th April 2017 the Complainant was accepted into the Respondent’s Income Continuance Plan. A Retrospective Labour Court pay award was implemented in December 2017. A revision of salary (3%) was made with a back dated award from the 1st March 2017. The Complainant maintained that the 3% revision should have been applied to the entry salary on which the income Continence payment was based.

In oral evidence it was maintained that the Senior Management Negotiation Team in the Airline had assured the Union negotiators, in the margins of the Labour Court Pay Negotiations, that the matter, while undoubtedly complex, would be “sorted”.

As a preliminary the Respondent pointed to a Personal Agreement, dated the 13th October 2017, with the Complainant. This agreement which among other things provide a Severance Payment was an all-inclusive settlement and no further claims were permissible. This claim clearly falls into this category and is inadmissible.

Nonetheless even if the claim is admitted to Adjudication the Complainant’s Income Continuance Payment was determined in keeping with the rules of the Irish Life Scheme.

As such it is not open to individual changes that would effectively be exceptions being made in an individual case.

As regards verbal commitments that might have been made between the parties at the Labour Court or Workplace Relations Commission talks the e mails between the Senior Negotiators on both sides clearly point to the matters as being “complex and requiring further examination” and no definite commitments were made.

Leaving aside all issues regarding the interpretation of the Personal Agreement dated the 13th October 2017 I reviewed the rules of the Income Continuance Scheme. The Salary Section states

“Salary means the Insured Person’s basic annual salary immediately preceding the injury or the commencement of sickness in which a claim is made excluding bonuses, commissions, overtime and any other floating emoluments.”

The insurers, Irish Life, applied these rules and the Complainant has no grounds for complaint on this basis. The Rules of the Scheme were applied as stated in the Schedules.

However, I was surprised on an Industrial Relations basis, at how sincerely the Trade Union representative -a full time official of long standing, was pursing this case. The monies involved were minor.

It would not be the first time that comments were made about relatively minor issues, by physically tired Negotiators leaving a lengthy Labour Court or WRC hearing that you could, to majorly stretch a point, call in a Legal context - 0biter dictum.

Quite often these comments have led to rows between parties afterwards as to what was said or even meant in these small cases. I am not saying that this happened in this case but I recommend that the Senior Negotiators on both sides involved here lift the telephone to clarify this issue.

However, notwithstanding the above comment, I find against this claim on the strict basis of the Rules of the Income Continuance Scheme not allowing for it and it being ruled out by the Personal Agreement of the 13th October 2017 between the parties.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Summary Recommendation

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00018335-001

Claim fully dismissed but Senior Negotiators involved might usefully lift the telephone to each other to clarify if comments were made following a LC or WRC hearing.