ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00005716
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
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-00007839-001
26/10/2016
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/02/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, and under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The complainant worked two out of every three Sundays for a considerable period of time. This attracted a premium payment of €3.44 per hour. The security contract transferred to the respondent in November 2014. Since November 2014 his Sunday working reduced to every second Sunday. This change was imposed upon him without agreement. In July 2016 agreement was reached which has now established acceptance of this change to the rostering for Sunday work. However the complainant is seeking retrospection of payment for the loss suffered between November 2014 and July 2016. This loss equates to €826.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The TUPE information received by the respondent does not indicate that the complainant worked the number of Sundays claimed. Since receiving notification of this claim every effort has been made to resolve it. However, the claimant has failed to supply pay slips in respect of the six months period prior to the transfer and, as the respondent is obliged to protect its finances, the claim could not be conceded due to lack of necessary paperwork.
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires me to make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
From the evidence at the hearing it is clear to me that the respondent was willing to consider the claim presented subject to adequate evidence of the previous practice being presented i.e. that the claimant worked 2 out of 3 Sundays during the period in question. Through no fault of the respondent this information was not available and such evidence as did exist only made available at the hearing. However, an examination of the payslips in the year preceding the transfer does indicate that the claimant worked approximately two out of every three Sundays, albeit not always in that rigid fashion. The new agreement reached with the staff resulted in an ongoing loss to the claimant. Accordingly, I recommend that the claimant be compensated in the sum of €600.
Recommendation
I recommend that the respondent pay the sum of €600 to the complainant
Dated : 4th May 2017