ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004113

Dispute for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/10/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Attendance at Hearing:

 A Supervisor V A County Council

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant has worked for the public body since 1979 .He worked full time as a Foreman .In September ,2014, a verbal agreement was reached with SIPTU that the complainant would engage in the role of a supervisor to oversee a particular component of service for a defined period of 1 March -30 September each year . This service was to be recognised for acting up allowance.

The present dispute arose as the service ran over in 2015, due to weather constraints and the complainant had been denied payment for 77 hours of acting allowance .He sought this payment. He contended that he worked mainly alone and he had established a right to the payment as the corresponding work had been completed without issue.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Respondent disputed the claim. The respondent accepted the presence of the agreement but contended that the witnesses to this agreement had left the service. The respondent contended that the work at the centre of the agreement was delayed in commencement until Mid June 2015.

In real terms there was 16 weeks of the particular work completed but in accordance with the agreement; 7 months had been paid at the higher level of supervisor. The respondent also contended that while the Public Body accepted that an over run had occurred, the complainant was engaged in other aspects of work, not directly attributable to supervisory duties, these did not warrant the higher payment.

The respondent asked that the claim be disallowed on the basis that the complainants substantive post responsibilities properly encompassed the overrun, given that he was already a senior employee.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 requires me to investigate the dispute, hear the parties and make a recommendation for consideration by the parties.

I have listened carefully to both parties and I have heard their views on their respective views of resolution of the dispute. For my own part , I accept the veracity and necessity of verbal agreements , however , it is best practice to avoid unintentional misunderstandings to encapsulate the mutual understanding of an agreement in a safe place .

On this occasion, I accept that efforts were made to arrive at that destination by the note to file of 31 March 2015, which recorded the duration of the season for which the acting up allowance was to be paid. This was meant to be “subject to review “. I understand that the review was to be completed by Human Resources, and perhaps issues of contingency for either delayed starts or over runs were capable of being dealt under that umbrella. For whatever reason, not known to the parties, this review did not occur. I cannot see how the claimant should be penalised for that. I accept that he undertook the work for the extended period of 77 hours. I am mindful that the 2016 season did not have an over run. This claim, therefore may indeed prove to be a unique set of circumstances

I recommend that the respondent pay the claimant 80% of the acting up salary for the 77 hrs within a four week period. I have reduced the award by 20% to allow for the respondent contention that the extended period was infiltrated by some other duties.

In addition, I recommend that in the run up to the commencement of the season, both parties engage in the intended review to address the projected work plan and contingencies in the event of a foreseeable or unforeseeable over run of the work.

Dated:   16^th November 2016