FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991 PARTIES : G HOLLAND LTD T/A HOLLAND TCS (REPRESENTED BY BARROR & CO.SOLICITORS) - AND - MS LAURA DENNISON (REPRESENTED BY CLARKE JEFFERS SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No ADJ-00021743 CA-00028463-002.
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Decision made pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court on 11 February 2020. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by G Holland Limited T/A Holland TCS against the decision of an Adjudication Officer ADJ-00021743, CA-00028463-002 under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 (the Act) in a claim its former employee Ms Laura Dennison who claimed the sum of €13,885.25 in an unpaid bonus payment The complaint was made pursuant to section 6 of the Act.
For ease of reference the parties are given the same designations as they had at first instance. Hence Ms Laura Dennison will be referred to as “the Complainant” and G Holland Limited T/A Holland TCS will be referred to as “the Respondent”.
The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was well founded and order the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €6,000.
The Complainant referred her claim under the Act to the Workplace Relations Commission on 16th May 2019.
Background
The Respondent is involved in selling and providing safety courses to companies in the private and public sectors, including the construction sector and for public contracts awarded subsequent to successful tender.
The Complainant was employed as from 7th June 2016 to 20th November 2018 as a Sales Manager with the Respondent.
Summary of the Complainant’s Case
The Complainant was represented by Mr Donnchadh Morgan, B.L., instructed by Clarke Jeffers & Co. Solicitors. Mr Morgan submitted that the Adjudication Officer’s findings were correct and ought to be upheld. He claimed that the Complainant was owed monies by the Respondent for payment of bonuses due and owing to her for the period from 1st July 2017 to 30th June 2018 which has not been paid to her. This payment, it was argued, was due to be paid in line with the terms of her contract as agreed between the parties at the outset of her employment in 2016.
Mr Morgan disputed the Respondent’s contention that the claim was statute barred and argued that at the time of the Complainant’s departure from the company, the Respondent had not paid these monies which he held were lawfully owed to her. He submitted that up to and subsequent to the Complainant’s departure from the company she was led to understand that the Respondent was investigating the matter regarding the issue of outstanding bonuses. On 8th November 2018, by email Mr George Holland, Managing Director, indicated to the Complainant that he would revert as soon as possible to her on her query regarding a bonus payment, which he never did.
Summary of the Respondent’s Position
Mr Aaron Shearer B.L., instructed by Barror Co Solicitors, on behalf of the Respondent disputed the Complainant’s claim under the Act. He submitted that no bonus was payable to the Complainant for the period July 2017 to June 2018 as sales did not reach the targets set.In any event, he contended that the claim was statute barred as it was not made in time. He argued that as the Complainant’s claim relates to a contention that a bonus was due in September 2018 and the claim referred to the WRC on 16th May 2019 it was therefore made in excess of six months after that date.
Information was presented to the Court in the course of the hearing by Mr Shearer which gave details of the Annual Sales Targets for the year in question, July 2017 to June 2018. This data discloses that the annual sales for that year were less that than the target sales and indicates that there was a shortfall of €147,000 between the targeted sales and the actual sales. Therefore, as the projected target was not reached there was no entitlement to a bonus for the Complainant. The Court notes that these figures were not disputed.
In such circumstances, having considered the data presented to the Court, it cannot find in favour of the Complainant’s claim. Accordingly, it is not necessary for the Court to consider the question whether or not the claim under the Act is statute barred.
Determination
The Adjudication Officer’s Decision is overturned. The Court upholds the Respondent’s appeal.
The Court so Determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CO'R______________________
28 February 2020Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.