FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ROSCOMMON COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMA) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No. R-159269-IR-15/EOS.
BACKGROUND:
2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 27 May 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
“Having reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noting in particular the precedents relied upon by the respondent, I have concluded that the claimant does not have locus standi and his complaint is hopelessly out of time. Accordingly I find against the claimant”.
The employee appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 1 July 2016 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12 October 2016.
DECISION:
At the commencement of the hearing the representative of the County Council raised a preliminary matter that the Claimant was no longer a worker within the meaning of Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946- 2015 (the Acts), as he had resigned from the County Council therefore it submitted that he had no locus standi to bring his case.
It was clarified for the Court that while the Claimant had resigned from the County Council, he had not retired from the workforce and he continued to be employed elsewhere. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that he is a worker for the purposes of the Acts. The application was without merit; consequently it was withdrawn at the hearing.
The substantive matter on appeal before the Court concerns a claim made by the Claimant for payment in lieu of overtime hours worked in 2005 and 2006. He sought to have such payments included in his cesser pay when he resigned in April 2015. When it was rejected by Management he submitted his claim under the Acts to the Workplace Relations Commission in September 2015.
The Court notes that by email dated 3rdMarch 2006, the Claimant sought monetary payments for additional hours worked in 2005 and 2006. This was not approved, however, he was recommended to take time off in lieu instead. The Claimant did not avail of that time off and sought to be paid for the time in lieu in 2015.
The claim was not presented to Management for almost ten years; the Court is of the view that Management should not have to address a claim in such circumstances. The Court also notes that the Claimant was paid all outstanding annual leave due to him on the cessation of his employment. The Court does not find in favour of the Claimant’s claim.
The Claimant’s appeal is rejected and the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation is varied accordingly.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
LS______________________
1 November 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.