Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Manager

Food Company

Representatives

Colm Casserly SIPTU

Mairead Crosby IBEC

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-00028504-001

20/05/2019

The dispute concerns a bonus which the Complainant contends should have been paid to him at the end of his employment.

The Complainant worked for the Respondent for 15 years. As part of his contract of employment he was entitled to participate in the Group Performance Scheme with a bonus payable up to 10% of gross salary. The bonus year runs from 1st April to 31st March each year and during his employment the Complainant achieved this full bonus.   He met all the targets for the year in question. On 24th April 2019 he handed in his notice as he was taking up another position nearer his home. His notice stated his last working day would be 21st May 2019. He was first advised by his manager that his bonus would be paid at the time he was handing in his notice, and was later informed that the manager would “have to look into it”. It was shortly after this, the Complainant was informed that he would not be getting his bonus, as he would no longer be in the company’s employment in June, when the bonus was to be paid out. The Complainant lodged a grievance and a grievance hearing was held. The Complainant submitted that in at least one other case, a manager had been paid his bonus after he left on early retirement. Further, that the Complainant had a specific contractual entitlement to the bonus and that his contract had never been altered in that respect.                         It is submitted that having met all the criteria and having been employed during the entire financial year, the Complainant had a very reasonable expectation of receiving his full bonus as he had the previous 14 years. Had his contract stated that he had to be an employee of the company at the time of payment (June 2019), the Complainant could have and would have used his 25 days annual leave he had accrued to span the timeframe to June.   The company made the argument that the policy on bonus payments which was introduced in March 2019 states that an employee must be employed by the company at time of Board approval. The Complainant never knew about or saw this policy until his grievance meeting on 15th May 2019. It is worth noting that the next day, 16th May HR emailed all staff about the policy.   it is argued that given all the circumstances, a reasonable employer would have paid the Complainant the bonus he so diligently earned.

The Complainant resigned his position by letter in April 2019, giving 4 weeks notice, his last day being 21st May 2019. He was informed on 3rd May that he would not receive a bonus as he would not be in the employment at the time of the Board decision about bonus payments and pay out. The Complainant lodged a grievance into the decision not to pay the bonus and it was not upheld by the company. It is the Respondent’s position that firstly, the bonus is discretionary.   Secondly, as the Respondent’s financial year ends on 31st March, no decision can be provided before June each year when the Board have had an opportunity to review the year end financial reports. Further, in April 2019 the Respondent circulated ‘Sharepoint’ across the company and an email announcing the details was furnished to all the sites on 17th April 2019. The section under ‘Benefits’ states “payment of the annual bonus normally occurs in June of each year.   Eligibility for payment of the bonus is subject to being an employee at the time of board approval…”   The Complainant has been an employee with the Respondent for a very substantial period of time and he himself has stated that he has always been in receipt of end of year bonus. That being the case, he must then be aware that bonuses, albeit discretionary, were discharged in June after the Board had an opportunity to review end of year financials. It is submitted that the Complainant knew or ought to have known that a requirement exists to be an employee at the time of board approval.  

Performance bonus not paid due to timing issue.