Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Electrician

Fuel manufacturer and supplier

Representatives

Darren Erangey

Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU)

Róisín Bradley

IBEC

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-00006827-001

06/09/2016

The Complainant is an electrician.

The Respondent is a fuel manufacturer and supplier.

The Complainant’s case is in relation to the use of his personal vehicle in order to provide emergency out of hour service cover to a fuel handling plant and the non payment of travel expenses outside of normal working hours.

The Complainant’s dispute is in regard to the financial cost of travelling to the fuel handling plant when on call.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent paid mileage to employees working in other parts of their business. The Complainant’s grievance is with regard to his financial cost of travelling to the plant while on call.

He requested that the Respondent’s car/mileage allowance would be extended to cover his role and he sought a retrospective payment to 2012.

The Respondent’s case is that the Complainant is required to work additional hours when required and to undertake call out work as required.

The Complainant’s salary is made up of a number of different allowances and a performance bonus.   One of the allowances is the fuel handling plant allowance.

The Complainant and other members of his team are required to make their own arrangements to get to and from work. At work they are provided with company vans to carry out their duties. The cost of running these vehicles was born solely by the Respondent.

The Respondent applies the normal Revenue rules that the Complainant is not allowed to claim mileage or travel expenses getting to or from his normal place of work. The same applies for call outs.

There has been put in place a comprehensive collective agreement called the Energy Craft Teamwork Proposal.   This sets out the basis on which remuneration is paid.

The Respondent raised a preliminary matter that I did not have jurisdiction under Section 13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

I will deal with the question of my jurisdiction before I considered the substantive claim.

Section 13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 provides a statutory restriction on the types of cases Rights Commissioners (now Adjudication Officers) may hear. They may not investigate disputes connected with rates of pay, hours or times of work or annual holidays of a body of workers.

The former Rights Commissioner service (now the Workplace Relations Commission) was established to investigate cases of an individual nature. Claims which have broader implications are inappropriate for Adjudications Officers and should be dealt with by the Labour Court.

In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the claim relates to a rate of pay and affects more than just the Complainant himself.

This case could potentially have broader implications for other workers in the business. On that basis, I find that I am precluded from hearing it under Section 13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

car/mileage allowance

Section 13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969