Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Dispatch Operative

A Transport Company

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00010388-001

23/03/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00010388-002

23/03/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998

CA-00010388-003

23/03/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00010388-004

23/03/2017

The Complainant was employed as a Dispatch Operative by the Respondent.   He left the employment on 1^st July 2017.   He submits that the Respondent acted in breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 by failing to pay a Sunday premium. In support of his claim, the Complainant submitted a summary document with case law outlining the Labour Court position on claims for Sunday premium.   Further, the Complainant submits that he was recruited at a rate of €10 per hour, and that was the rate quoted on the employment ‘starter form’.   The Complainant was in receipt of €9.50 per hour and he seeks payment for the difference estimated at in or around €482.55.   The Complainant also states that he did not receive a written statement of terms of employment as provided for in the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

The Complainant, recognising that the Parental Leave Act is not applicable to his complaints withdrew this particular complaint at hearing.

In relation to the Sunday Working claim, the Respondent submits that the business is very low margin and as far as it is aware Dispatch Operators are normally paid minimum wage. It is argued that the employees in this employment are paid a composite rate which takes into account working days, nights and weekends. When the Complainant raised the issue of Sunday premium, the Respondent reviewed the rate to confirm that is was equitable and calculations submitted show a premium rate of 10% for Sunday work and 12.5% for nights work.

In relation to the complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, wherein the Complainant seeks to have an hourly rate of €10 applied, it is submitted that the job advertisement he responded to had an hourly rate of €9.00 and that the €10 per hour inserted on the Complainant’s starter form was not inserted by any of the Directors/Managers of the Company or any other authorised person. At the time he was recruited, the rate for Dispatch Operators was €9 per hour and there would have been no reason to deviate from this for the Complainant.

In relation to the complaint under the Terms of Employment (information) Act 1994, it is agreed that the complainant did not receive the written contract strictly within the time limits in the Act.   However, this was an administrative oversight and when realised, immediately rectified. It is submitted that the Complainant has not demonstrated how he has been disadvantaged by the delay.

CA-00010388-001   Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

I have examined the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, the case law submitted by the Complainant and the table of calculations submitted by the Respondent. I note the Respondent’s calculation includes a 10% premium and that there is no collective agreement governing the industry.    I find that the requirement to work on Sunday is taken into account in the determination of the employee’s pay. I do not uphold the Complainant’s complaint.

CA-00010388-002   Payment of Wages Act 1991

I note the conflicting evidence regarding the rate of pay on recruitment of the Complainant.     Neither party could provide the advertisement to which the Complainant responded. I accept the evidence that the Complainant was paid the standard rate which his fellow employees were paid.   I do not uphold his complaint.

CA-00010388-004   Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

I note that it is common case that the Respondent failed to provide the Complainant with written terms of conditions of employment within two months of commencement as provided for in Section 3 of the Act. I uphold the Complainant’s complaint and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €200 compensation.