ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001333

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/04/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes

Procedure: 

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and the abovementioned Act, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, 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).

Attendance at Hearing: 

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation: 

The respondent’s regulations at 5.11.1 provides for the payment of subsistence expenses to employees working on official business or field duties away from their base at rates authorised by the Minister. In the period during which the complainant was so engaged she travelled to and from her normal base (being in contact with the control centre at all times during the journey) each day. The daily journey was made in working time on the instruction of the employer and at its expense. It is clear that xxxxx was the base at all times and the claimant made same clear to the respondent in correspondence dated 4^th of March 2013, which seemed to be accepted by the respondent in the period March to May 2013. It demurred from that position on 1^st of July 2013 stating that “your present place of work is xxxxx”.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation: 

The complainant was temporarily redeployed to xxxxx from May 2013 until August 2014. She was accommodated in respect of the provision of Transport and Time (travel during working hours) however no agreement was in place in respect of subsistence payment. This was a temporary transfer which is not covered for payment of subsistence in accordance with the regulations and rules. An offer of settlement has been made within the parameters of the regulations and rules.

Decision: 

It is clear that there has been to say the least a breakdown in communication here and that when the claimant initially took up the duty she did so on the basis that her base would not change for the purpose of the temporary redeployment. That position was clearly indicated in advance.

I note that the claimant has alleged that others have been and some continue to be treated differently in the matter of temporary redeployment and that the respondent has indicated that if such is the case then NFR rules are being breached. I would urge the respondent to investigate this allegation with a view to correcting any inequity of treatment at earliest.

With regard to the matter at hand I acknowledge that the circumstances are somewhat unusual within the context of the everyday operation of the service provided by the respondent. However it is not unusual in industry generally that even in circumstances where an employer provides transportation and the employee receives time to travel to an alternative work location as in this case that they are paid travel and subsistence to reflect the fact that they are working away from normal base

Accordingly my recommendation is that the complainant is to be paid compensation in the amount of €1,750 (say one thousand seven hundred and fifty euro) net without precedent and particular to the precise circumstances described here in full and final settlement of her claim.

Dated:   23^rd November 2016