FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (DIT) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-067446-ir-08/EH
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant has been employed by the Dublin Institute of Technology Bolton St. (DIT) as a Carpenter since 2000. Following an incident during the Summer of 2008 the Claimant has claimed that he had not been rostered for overtime unlike other members of the maintenance staff. This includes a General Operative whom the Claimant argues is doing carpentry work and is in effect doing the Claimant out of any overtime that could have become available. Management at DIT dispute this scenario and maintains that overtime must be arranged in advance as some staff were in breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act due to the excessive hours worked.
The issue involves a claim by a Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 12th December, 2008, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"I recommend that the Claimant uses the DIT grievance procedure to process any grievance that he has and that he accepts that the Labour Relations Commission should be the last "port of call" in these matters.....and if the matter is not resolved he should raise it with HR in accordance with the DIT grievance procedure."
(note; the Claimant was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.)
On the 30th January, 2009 the Claimant appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th June, 2009.
CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Ever since the complaint was made to Management the Claimant has not been offered overtime work. However carpentry work is regularly done on overtime by one particular General Operative
2. The Claimant is the only Carpenter employed in DIT Bolton St. and all overtime to date was requested and authorised by Management. The Claimant has followed procedures laid down regarding the grievances and does not require assistance from the Union in this matter.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant is a member of UCATT but yet he has never used them to represent him at any of the hearings, which is not the way industrial relations grievances are handled in the DIT. The IR procedures are clearly outlined in his contract of employment.
2. Before overtime work is arranged or scheduled it must first be sanctionedby Management.
DECISION:
The Court considers, having considered all of the material supplied to it by the parties, that the Rights Commission's Recommendation was reasonable and should be implemented.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
2nd October, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.