ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001485

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946	CA-00002045-001	19/01/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/04/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant has a number of workplace issues which he has not resolved with the respondent. Specifically, his overtime arrangements were changed some time back, resulting in a loss of earnings. Further, he has not been given “first refusal” to open or close the college which he sees as part of his conditions of employment. Between 2006 and 2014 the complainant, who is employed as a Caretaker, shared an overtime arrangement with the previous Cleaner whereby they worked overtime on a week on week off basis for closing the school for night classes. This arrangement changed in 2014 when the classes moved to another location. In September 2014 a new Cleaner was employed and the complainant noticed she had been delegated the responsibility of locking up the school after evening activities. The complainant is concerned that his terms and conditions are being undermined and all efforts to have the Principal and Chief Executive resolve the matter have not succeeded. The complainant also feels there is a specific approach by the Principal to advise him at the last minute of requirements. He further raised the issue of the “Alarm Plus” allowance which he used to get and now does not. He was advised of this almost a full year after he completed the duties attached to it.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent values the complainant as a good employee and wishes it to be noted that he gives great service as a Caretaker and continues to do so. In 2014 there were some changes in that the school of music relocated and evening classes were also relocated to a newly renovated building down the road. The complainant had provided Caretaker services for both classes and he was informed of the impending changes. Subsequently, a meeting was held with the complainant and his union and they were advised that as events and occasions arose, the Caretaker would be contacted as needed by the Principal. He was also advised that the opportunity arose to carry out the Caretaker role in the evening classes which had moved (nearer the complainant’s home), but he declined. Following the meeting, the respondent contacted the Department of Education and Skills (DES) in relation to the loss of regular overtime and was informed of the method of calculation of compensation. The respondent wrote to the complainant outlining the terms of the compensation package on 10^th March 2015 but to date received no reply. Some further correspondence was exchanged between the respondent and the union but the respondent was of the understanding that matters were resolved. In discussions in early 2015 the complainant talked about being “reinstated”. Given the transfer of the evening classes the only avenue open to the respondent is compensation or alternative commensurate overtime opportunities. This has been offered to the complainant. On the matter of access to overtime the complainant has always been called on by the Principal as required to meet the needs of the school and as is in line with his conditions of service. Such occasions are non-routine and it is therefore not possible to provide a list in advance. It is envisaged that as the college is going through a phase of development and expansion additional opportunities for overtime will be available. An analysis of the overtime over the last four years show that the complainant worked more overtime in 2015 than the previous three years. Clarification in relation to the ‘Alarm plus’ allowance was given at the hearing, in that this is an allowance specific to teachers.

Decision:

There are two issues here that have formed the grievance of the complainant.

The loss of overtime earnings due to the changes which came about in the relocation of the school of music and evening classes.
I recommend that the complainant replies to the respondent’s offer to buy out the overtime. I recognise that the conditions placed on the offer by DES make it somewhat difficult, but the respondent should have a reply to that correspondence outstanding since 10^th March 2015.
The complainant seeks to have the situation regarding overtime regularised and clarified, specifically in that the Principal should offer him “first refusal” to work overtime when the school requires to be closed in the evenings etc. He also requires that more notice is given to him for the requirement to work in the evenings.
I note the complainant’s contract of employment states inter alia:
“To open and close the premises as directed by the responsible officer”.
The responsible officer in this case is the Principal. I recommend that the Principal endeavours as far as possible to give the complainant advance notice of the requirements to stay late. This in itself may solve the issue of offering the opportunity to work overtime to other staff. I note the respondent’s assertion that further opportunities to work overtime are likely to arise in the future and it is recommended that both parties work together to build the trust which is needed for the complainant’s issues to be fully resolved.

Dated: 29^th June 2016