EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO
PW206/2015
APPEAL OF:
Bernard Farrell
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
Dublin Street Parking Services
under
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1991
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms N. O'Carroll-Kelly B L
Members: Mr J. Horan
Mr A. Butler
heard this appeal at Dublin on 18th May 2016
Representation:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Mr John Redmond, IBEC, Confederation House, 84/86 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2
This case came before the Tribunal by way of an appeal by an employee against a recommendation by a Rights’ Commissioner reference r-149176-pw-14/EH
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:
Appellant’s Case
The appellant has almost twelve years’ work experience with the respondent. The respondent is a traffic control enterprise and part of its remit is to clamp and declamp illegally parked vehicles in the Dublin area. This is the appellant’s main job which generally is carried out with another colleague. During the course of his employment the appellant had been assaulted at least a couple of times.
The appellant reported for duty at 07.00 on Saturday 13 July 2013 and was informed he was a lone ranger for the day ie he had no working partner. This was a rare and unusual occurrence. He declined the offer to work alone that morning and was therefore faced with a number of options, namely to take a day’s leave, to go home and treat it as an unpaid day, or work the shift on another day. Again he refused to adhere to those options and that resulted in him losing a day’s pay which amounted to around €200.00.
At the conclusion of a subsequent investigation into this scenario the respondent again offered him those options and again he gave the same answer. The appellant regarded the deduction of that day’s pay as amounting to a day’s suspension. It was his contention that being asked to work alone was in breach of health and safety standards. He also maintained that there was an agreement in place between the respondent and the employees that did not include the respondent offering those options. Besides, there was no declamping work undertaken that day.
Respondent’s Case
An experienced operations’ manager told the Tribunal that offering the appellant those three options plus the choice of working alone were in accordance with health and safety agreements. Since the appellant opted not to accept any of those options and effectively withdrew his labour for that day then the respondent exercised its right to dock him a day pay.
Determination
While the respondent appeared to be heavy handed and rigid towards this incident the Tribunal finds the company was within its rights to act as it did. The appellant’s attitude was equally inflexible but unlike the respondent he did not act in accordance with his obligations to follow a reasonable instruction, even under protest, by the respondent.
The appeal under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 fails and the Tribunal upholds the decision of the Rights’ Commissioner.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)