ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016802
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Gate Keeper | A Transport Company |
Representatives | A HR Manager |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00021828-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint/ dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint / dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint / dispute.
Background:
The Complainant was claiming that the Respondent reneged on paying a standard gratuity payment due to her and paid to past employees. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant has been a Gatekeeper for the Respondent since July 2003. On retirement the standard gratuity payment to this position up to 2016 was 9,525 Euros and this was unilaterally stopped by the Respondent without agreement. The Complainant is seeking payment of the Gratuity. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The payment was an ex gratia payment and can be made in a number of circumstances. The payment has a traditional link to a number of employee categories. Payments have typically been made to employees who joined after the age of 50 and was paid primarily on the basis they were not members of the pension scheme. The payments have normally been capped at 9,525 Euros per person. It was paid between 2005 and 2016 inclusive but was ceased in 2017 to reduce costs to the company due to its difficult financial circumstances. The payment has been reinstated for employees that retire after March 2019. The payment is an ex gratia payment and therefore at the discretion of the Company. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Having considered the submissions in this case it appears that the Complainant has been unfairly penalised just because they retired during a small specific timeframe. Given that the ex gratia payment is not of such amount as to affect the overall finances of the Respondent, the fact that the payment has since been reinstated, that the payment seems to have been stopped, albeit temporarily, without consultation, I recommend that the standard ex gratia payment for this category of employee, which was in effect prior to it being suspended by the Respondent, be paid to the Complainant. |