ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002937
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
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-00004064-001 | 26/04/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00004064-002 | 26/04/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/12/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984, and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000] 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).
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The Claimant is not paid for all the on-call work she provides for aHospital. This work is done outside of her primary employment as a Lecturer/Registrar in Rehabilitation Medicine as an employee of a College. The Hospital does not pay her for all the hours she spends at there outside the hours of her primary employment. The amount quoted is the amount due to Claimant as of February 29th 2016, but this non-payment is ongoing. |
SHE is engaged in two separate employments. Her primary employment is with the College Dublin as a Lecturer/Registrar in Rehabilitation Medicine. In addition, she also provides on-call service for the Hospital. She has repeatedly requested a separate contract enumerating her rights in this secondary employment with the Hospital, particularly her right to clinical indemnity coverage. This request has been refused. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The Respondent presented a detail description of the Claimant’s role and the fact that her contract covers both the College and the Hospital (copy provided to the Hearing). The Claimant would have attended interview with the College Professor/ Consultants and the Consultant from the Hospital.
To this end neither employer sees any legal reason to provide her with an additional statement in writing under the Term off Employment (Information) Act
Both employers maintain that all duties carried out sine 1 September 2015 were under the Joint Appointment Contract and payments made were paid accordingly in line with legislation around the payment of Hospital / Registrar.
Decision:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have considered the submissions of both parties. I am satisfied having read the terms of the Claimant’s contract that it is a joint contract issued both by both Respondents. This is stated in the first paragraph of the contract. The Claimant is employed jointly by these bodies.
I therefore do not find the claims well founded and they fail.
Dated: 25/05/2017