FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BRITVIC IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No(s) r-154477-ir-15/RG & r-154595-ir/15/RG
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue involves a claim by the employees that an unjustified wage deduction had taken place. The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 16 of November 2015, the Adjudication Officer issued her Recommendation as follows:
"I recommend that the Employer pay both the Claimants 4 hours pay 'the company gift' for 23 December 2014."
On the 23 of December, 2015 the Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer's 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 3rd of February 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On the day in question, it is common practice that when employees finish work allocated by management, they finish for the day and are paid for their full shift.
2. No instruction was ever given by the Company that the Claimants would need permission to leave the site.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1. The standard practice on 23rd December is that the Company operates a collective "task and finish" work system. Employees can only leave the premises with consent from management.
RECOMMENDATION:
This is an appeal by the Employer of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendations No: r-154477-r-15/RG and r-154595-ir—15/RG which found in favour of the Claimants’ claims and recommended that the Employer should pay them four hours pay in respect of pay deducted from them on 23rdDecember 2014.
The Union on behalf of the Claimants claimed that the normal custom and practice on that day was to work to “task and finish”. It stated that as it was the break-up day for Christmas when no manufacturing was carried out, the Claimants were required to carry out their allocated duties for the day, they could then leave the premises and they were paid for the full eight hour shift. It maintained that the deduction of pay in such circumstances was a breach of the normal custom and practice.
The Employer acknowledged that the “break-up day” is a non-standard working day and that the established practice provides that all employees are paid their full eight hours’ rostered time as long as certain criteria are metviz.that the work allocated to each shift is fully completed before employees are given permission by the Supervisor/Manager to go home early.
However, in this case the Claimants had not sought permission to leave, one of the two Claimants had not clocked out, they both left the work premises without permission and therefore they were paid for the hours worked only.
It is not disputed that the Claimants did not report to management and seek permission to leave early on 23rdDecember 2014.
Having considered the written and oral submissions of both parties the Court is satisfied that the established practice referred to was conditional on certain criteria being met and that the Claimants did not abide by those conditions, therefore the Court does not accept that the deduction in pay was unwarranted.
The Court upholds the Employer’s appeal and overturns the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendations.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
____5th_February 2016______________________
JKDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.