FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 11 (1), EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES ON TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) REGULATION, 2003 PARTIES : WOODIES DIY LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. 15 individual appeals of an Adjudication Officer's Decision, Numbers:-r-154300 -tu-15./ 154293-tu-15./ 154282-tu-15./ 154283-tu-15./ 154284-tu-15. / 154285-tu-15./ 154286-tu-15./ 154287-tu-15. /154289-tu-15./ 154288-tu-15./ 154290-tu-15./ 154292-tu-15./ 154299-tu-15./ 154298-tu-15./ 154297-tu-15./ 154296-tu-15./ 154295-tu-15./ 154294-tu-15.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Workers appealed the Decisions of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 16 December 2016. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17 February 2017. The following is the Decision of the Court.
DETERMINATION:
Background to the Appeal
The Court heard appeals brought on behalf of 15 individual employees at one sitting on 17 February 2017 as it was agreed between the Parties that the substance of each of the appeals was identical. The appeals were against a series of decisions made by an Adjudication Officer under the European Communities (Protection of Employees on the Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (SI 131/2003) (“the Regulations”), each of which is dated 7 November 2016. The Adjudication Officer found that each of the complaints was not well founded. The individual Notice of Appeal in each case was received by the Court on 16 December 2016.
The 15 Complainants had originally been employed by Atlantic Homecare prior to the Respondent’s acquisition of that business in 2005. It is common case that that acquisition gave rise to a transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of the Regulations and that the Complainants’ terms and conditions post-transfer were no less favourable than those they had enjoyed prior to the date of the transfer.
In September 2014 – i.e. almost 10 years after the transfer – the Respondent introduced a change in the frequency of the payment of former Atlantic Homecare employees. Some 250 such employees had up this date been paid on weekly basis but were transferred to a monthly payroll system in line with the rest of the Respondent’s workforce. It appears the majority of the 250 employees accepted the changeover but the 15 Complainants did not. The Respondent supported employees in the transition phase with financial advice and support, salary advancements, etc.
The Union submits that the imposition of a monthly payroll system on the Complainants is in breach of their individual contracts, the Collective Agreement that was in place between the Union and Atlantic Homecare and of Regulation 4 of the Regulations. The Union is, accordingly, seeking compensation of €1,000.00 per Complainant for the breach of Regulation 4.
The Respondent submits that the transition from weekly to monthly payroll was effected some 9 years after the transfer took place and cannot, therefore, be logically associated therewith. Furthermore, it submits it was done in consultation with employees and was accepted by the vast majority of them.
Discussion and Decision
It is manifestly the case that the Complainants have failed to establish any logical connection between the transfer that occurred in 2005 and the change to the frequency of payroll payments effected by the Respondent in 2014. It follows that the appeals fails.
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CR______________________
16th June, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.