FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ISS IRELAND LIMITED T/A ISS FACILITY SERVICES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marié Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. R-147650-IR-14.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. R-147650-IR-14. The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim that he been unfairly denied access to a travel pass. It is the Worker's contention that he has been entitled to a travel pass since he commenced employment with the Company in 1997 however he has never received one from his Employer. The Employer reject's the Worker's claim arguing that he had no entitlement to a travel pass at any stage during the course of his employment. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 18th September, 2015 the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"I can understand the Claimant feeling aggrieved that a number of his colleagues working in Heuston Station have an entitlement to a travel pass and he does not, however, similar to other colleagues in Heuston Station and other sites, he was recruited by the respondent on terms that did not provide an entitlement to that benefit.
Having fully considered the submissions made by the parties I find against the claim that the Claimant should be provided with a travel pass".
On the28th October 2015, the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner'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 11th May, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker contends that he should have received a travel pass from his Employer.
2. The Worker maintains that a number of his colleagues received travel passes.
3. The Worker believes that he should have received a travel pass when he commenced employment in 1997 however he has never received one. The Worker is now seeking access to a travel pass.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A number of staff based in Heuston Street Station were granted travel passes as part of a Company/Union agreement, however this was not applicable to this Worker.
2. A certain number of staff retained travel passes under a Transfer of Undertakings agreement. This Worker was not involved in that agreement and accordingly was not given a travel pass.
3. The Worker is not entitled to a travel pass and as such cannot be given one.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court notes that the Claimant has never worked at the Heuston Station site, he was not affected by the transfer which took place in June 1997 and accordingly was not covered by theEuropean Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003. In addition, the Court notes that he was not encompassed by an agreement reached between the Company and SIPTU on 5thSeptember 2007 which was confined to a limited number of employees based at Heuston Station.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend in favour of the Claimant’s claim for a travel pass and upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th May 2016______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.