ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006870
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Local Authority Foreman | A Local Authority |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00009312-001 | 24/01/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/06/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969, following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Complaint:
The Complainant was employed since 1983 and has over 35 years service. He was appointed to his current role in 1995 where part of his responsibility included inputting pay role details for the staff. In 2007 a new time recording system was introduced on a pilot scheme for the purposes of payroll and the Complainant was required to use this system. The Complaint became aware that other staff inputting details on the system in other areas received a weekly allowance of €47.50 for inputting this data, and where at least one other Foreman received this allowance when he was required to input the data. The Complainant made a claim at the time and was advised by local management that the matter would be looked into. Despite numerous informal efforts to receive the payment, the payment was never granted to the Complainant. He progressed a formal claim for the allowance in 2016 and has alleged his claim was initially ignored and it required further action and representations from his Trade Union through before he received a response. Eventually his claim was rejected, and the Complainant argued this was contrary to the local commitments he was given from the outset by local management. He was seeking a recommendation from the WRC in relation to the payment of his claim and for the handling of the claim by the Respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent acknowledged that the Complainant had provided excellent service over the years and that he had agreed to set up a new maintenance section in 1995, and had operated this section very successfully. The Respondent also acknowledged that in 2007 a time recording process for pay purposes was introduced as a pilot scheme and that the Complainant inputted information for his staff on the system. It further acknowledged that an allowance was paid to staff to input this information but that the allowance was only to apply to General Operatives who input the data and not for Foremen. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant had only to input details for a small number of staff and therefore the allowance would not apply. Notwithstanding, evidence provided during the hearing supported that the Respondent was aware the Complainant had sought an allowance back in 2007 but did not progress his request at the time; and again in November 2016 when it received his claim it again did not respond to it in a timely manner. The Respondent maintained that had it formally reviewed the claim at the time it would not have paid it as the allowance only applied to General Operatives, although it acknowledged that over time it may have been paid to another Foreman on occasion. It also maintained that in light of a Central Government circular (EL/2012) it was now precluded from progressing with the claim as any new claims from 2012 could not be progressed. In this regard the Respondent advised that a number of similar claims would have been disallowed due to the application of the circular. In addition the Respondent advised that as the time recording system was in the process of being replaced the allowance would not be applied in the future. The allowance was not reckonable for superannuation. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having considered the matter I find that the Respondent failed to handle the claim in a reasonable manner or in an appropriate time frame. Evidence presented suggests that the Claimant had an expectation from management that his informal claim would be addressed but that never happened. Had the Complainant known that at the time he would likely have made a formal claim and may not have been precluded from progressing that under EL 2012. I acknowledge it is unclear whether the claim would have been sanctioned in any event, or indeed if the Complainant would qualify for it. However I find the delay of handling the claim by the Respondent is unreasonable. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Having considered the matters and representations made by the parties I am satisfied that the Respondent did not treat the Complaint reasonably in relation to dealing with his claim. I therefore recommend by way of compensation for this the Complainant be awarded a sum of €3,800. As this is awarded as compensation it should be paid as a net sum of €3,800 to the Complainant. I recommend this sum be paid within 42 days of the date of issue of this recommendation.
Dated: 28/07/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney
Key Words:
Handling of a claim for an allowance. |