RSA Insurance Ireland Ltd (Represented by Ibec) v A Worker (Represented by Unite the Union)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 25 October 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 10 JIEC 2501
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Date: 25 October 2018
• Docket Number: DECISION NO.LCR21799,ADJ-00007561 CA-00010215-001,FULL RECOMMENDATION

Labour Court

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/18/258

DECISION NO.LCR21799

ADJ-00007561 CA-00010215-001

PARTIES:

RSA Insurance Ireland Limited (Represented by Ibec)

and

A Worker (Represented by Unite the Union)

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Foley

Employer Member: Ms Doyle

Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No. ADJ-00007561.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 12 July 2018 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-

• “I recommend that the respondent make a payment of €3,000 (say three thousand euro) to the complainant by way of restoration of good faith between the parties on the one hand and the amelioration of the disappointment created on the other”

3 The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on 21 August 2018 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

4 A Labour Court hearing took place on 9 October 2018.

DECISION:

5 The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

6 It is common case that the Appellant received a letter from the Respondent dated 30 ^th July 2015 and a further letter dated 5 ^th August 2015 advising him that he was to be placed on reward level 5 at a salary of €31,000. The Appellant had been employed by the Respondent since 2009 and, in August 2015, was in receipt of a salary of €28,000 approximately.

7 The Appellant was advised that the new salary level would take effect from 1 ^st October 2015. However, the Respondent advised the Appellant on 4 ^th September 2015 that the salary adjustment earlier advised would not now proceed. The Respondent advised the Court that the notification in July / August of a salary adjustment to the Appellant was an error. The Appellant, through his Trade Union, confirmed that he did not accept that an error occurred.

8 The Court finds that the experience of the Appellant was extremely unsatisfactory and accepts that he had reasonably believed for a period of some weeks in 2015 that his salary would increase on 1 ^st October 2015. That expectation was, in the event, not met. The Court finds that the Respondent was entirely responsible for this unfortunate sequence of events.

9 The Court notes that the Appellant was never in receipt of the expected salary increase and that no change occurred to...