ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00004231
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Security Official | A Sporting Administration Body. |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00005267-001 | 17/06/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/05/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Location of Hearing: Room G.02 WRC O'Brien Road Carlow
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and or Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Element One : The Respondent underpaid the Sunday Attendance payment for the years 2003 to 2015. When this error was discovered the Respondent paid arrears for 2015 only. The balance for the years to 2003 is due to me. Element Two : The Respondent has lengthened the duration of the Sporting fixtures by approximately 0.25 of an hour to 1.5 of an hour. This was done without consultation and the Respondent has refused to pay the appropriate overtime for the additional times in question. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Element One: The Sunday issue was identified in December of 2015 and one year’s arrears of the disputed amount were paid to all staff. The claim for arrears beyond this one year period is out of time as per the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 as referenced by Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. Element Two: The Complainant and all his colleagues are paid a daily rate to cover the Sporting events involved. This has always been the practice and was so when the Complainant was first recruited. Minor additions to the programme are well within the scope of the daily rate. On special “Festival” events a small additional, payment is made to the Staff in recognition of the considerable extra work involved but this could not apply to ordinary ongoing events. The claim for overtime has no substance. Additional Comment As an additional comment the Terms and Conditions for almost all staff of the Respondent Body were the subject of comprehensive negotiations and agreement (covering the period to Nov 2018) with the MANDATE Trade Union in February 2016. The issue raised by the Complainant (extended events) did not form part of the final agreement and did not appear to be a matter of concern in these discussions. It is acknowledged that the Complainant is not a member of MANDATE. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
Element One. The arrears for 2015 paid by the Respondent discharged his obligations. The Payment of Wages Act 1991 and the Workplace Relations Act 2015 Legislation does not allow for claims before this 2015 date. Accordingly this element of the claim is not well founded and has to be dismissed. Element Two: The claim for “Extra event times” is not well founded – the daily rate is of long standing practice and appears to be accepted by almost all staff without comment. If it was a very major issue it would have featured in the MANDATE talks of 2016. Accordingly the claim is dismissed as being without a good foundation. |
4: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 require that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Summary Decision Ref Section 3 above. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00005267-001 | The claim is not well founded and is dismissed. |
Dated: 22 June 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee