Hr Foods Ltd v Noel O'Loughlin
Labour Court (Ireland)
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no. ADJ-00010382.
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 16 March 2018 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:
This is Mr O'Loughlin's (‘the Complainant’) appeal from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ- 10382, dated 18 December 2017) under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (‘the 1991 Act’). The Complainant's Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 26 January 2018. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 16 March 2018. The Complainant had referred a number of complainants against his former employer, HR Foods Limited (‘the Respondent’), to the Workplace Relations Commission. However, his appeal to this Court is confined to two matters in respect of which his claims were held at first instance not to be well-founded. Those claims bore the reference number CA-00013818-003.
The first of those matters encompassed by the claim under the 1991 Act refers to the non-payment of bonus of up to 30% of base salary that the Complainant alleges he was contractually entitled to. The Complainant's contract of employment was exhibited at the hearing of the appeal. It provides, in relevant part, as follows: “A Bonus Scheme of up to 30% of Salary is dependent on Agreed KPIs will be paid Quarterly in Arrears (sic).” A schedule of agreed KPIs was also exhibited. However, the Complainant and Mr John Hannon, Managing Director of the Respondent, gave totally conflicting evidence in relation to the extent to which the Complainant had achieved his agreed KPIs during his three months or so of employment with the Respondent in 2017.
Neither the bonus scheme as outlined in the Complainant's contract of employment nor the document outlining his KPIs for 2017 sets out any metric for determining what level of bonus was payable to the Complainant having regard to his performance in any particular quarter. It is not for the Court to superimpose a metric on such a bonus...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL