FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-094510-Ir-10/EH, R-094512-Ir-10/EH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker began her employment with the Council as a School Warden in 1996. Over a number of years she took up cleaning duties in Council offices around Navan Town and in the Trim Water Treatment Plant. Her role was formalised in February, 2003 and she signed a contract of employment setting out her duties as a part-time warden ( 2.5 hours per day) and part-time cleaner (19 hours per week). In August, 2003, it was agreed that her work would be increased to 39 hours per week as a full-time cleaner, and she signed a new contract. The Council's case is that the worker was claiming for overtime which had not been authorised, both before and after signing the new contract. The worker's case is that in February, 2008, the Council stopped various payments to her, including wages, and that the reason given was "unsigned time-sheets". This caused the worker a great deal of stress. In September, 2008, all outstanding monies were paid to the worker but, she claims, shortly afterwards in January, 2009, the Council stopped more payments/allowances to her. The worker referred her case to a Rights Commissioner whose recommendation was as follows:
"I recommend that the worker must accept that s long as she works for the Council she must carry out the instructions of management.
I recommend that she accept that she should only work overtime when it is authorised by the designated management of the Council.
I recommend that should she fail to adhere to this instruction that the full rigours of the disciplinary procedure should be applied to her.
I recommend that the Council applies the same travelling allowances to the worker and all other employees and that this should stand up to objective scrutiny.
I recommend that she should be paid the eating on site allowance only when she undertakes authorised work.
I recommend that she should adhere to all policies and rules applying to all other staff based in Navan.
I am conscious that work was undertaken by the worker, albeit without authorisation that has not been paid for, therefore in full and final settlement of this dispute and in acceptance of all these recommendations above I recommend that she is paid €2000 within six weeks of the date below."
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 3rd March, 2011, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th July, 2011.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had no problems with her duties until February, 2008. She would not have been offered a full-time contract in 2003/2004 if the Council was not happy with her work.
2. The worker had continuous problems getting her timesheets signed due to the fragmented nature of the locations where she worked. She asked for the name of a second manager in each location to sign the sheets but this was not provided by the Council. She had been told in 2004 by the then HR Manager that her wages would never be stopped because of unsigned time sheets.
3. The stopping of her wages and allowances caused the worker great stress resulting in her having to take sick leave.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's contract of employment clearly states that all overtime must be signed and approved by name supervisors prior to being undertaken. This applies to all employees of the Council. Despite this the worker has on numerous occasions done overtime without approval and despite being told not to do so.
2. The worker's claim that she was askedby local management to do cleaning duties which necessitated overtime is not true. At no time was she asked to do overtime without prior authorisation.
3. On a number of occasions the Council has agreed to pay the worker outstanding payments. On each occasion after the payment is made the worker has refused to uphold her side of the agreement and continued to work unauthorised overtime.
4. The same principle applies to travel and subsistence as applies to overtime. The Council will not reimburse the worker for claiming unauthorised travel.
DECISION:
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that the findings of the Rights Commissioner are consistent with the facts as disclosed in the course of the appeal.
Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is reasonable and ought to be upheld.
Accordingly, it is the decision of the Court that the appeal be disallowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner affirmed.
By way of addendum, and in the interest of avoiding further conflict between the Council and the Claimant, the Court recommends that the parties meet for the purpose of clarifying the working arrangements now applicable to the Claimant and the manner in which any change in those arrangements will be effected.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th July, 2011.______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.