ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007804

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/09/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery

Procedure:

In accordance with 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.

Background:

The Complainant is a driver with a government agency and is a full time seasonal driver of permanent employment.

This claim was taken by two other employees also and the three employees agreed to take their claim together but his has been separated from the other two via the WRC.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant outlined three issues:

The Complainant has been identified as a full time seasonal driver which has been confirmed by the Labour Court. The Complainant has worked for the Respondent for 21 years as a temporary seasonal driver.

In 2016 the Respondent made a proposal to the union regarding 5 full time driver roles in May 2016. At this time the Respondent identified that they needed full time drivers in other locations in the county.

This proposal was put to union members in May 2016 at an AGM. Part of the proposal was not accepted by full time drivers as they didn’t want to go out to the proposed areas but these seasonal drivers didn’t get a chance to consider the proposal.

As normal in October 2016 the drivers were left go as they are seasonal workers.

On the 6^th of March the Complainant wrote to the Respondent with another three drivers to ask why they were not considered for the positions.

The Complainant got no reply to that letter so he and the other two drivers put in their claim. He then got a reply from the Respondent and the Complainant is now bringing a claim the same as the other two employees.

The Respondents replied to the Complainant in March 2017.

The Complainant came back to work as a seasonal driver from April 2017 and is currently still there.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent stated that the formal proposal was put to the Union and it took until November 2016 to have a meeting.

The Respondent said the proposal was put in its entirety and confirmed it wasn’t accepted in its entirety.

The Respondent stated that the long term plan of what’s happening with the machinery yard and its viability is being considered and currently reviewed.

The Respondent can’t make any further proposals until that is done.

The Respondent stated this is a collective matter that the Union has been working on with them.

The Respondent stated that there is no confirmation by the Union that the proposal was rejected by them but that they were told this verbally.

Recommendation:

Section 13 (1) and (2) of Industrial Relations Act, 1990 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 – 2015 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute however as this is a collective matter as an Adjudicator I have no jurisdiction to make a recommendation. However, the Complainant stated that the parties are going to aim for resolution at local level following their attendance at the WRC hearing which is positive.

Dated:   15/11/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery