ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008623
Parties:
Representatives | SIPTU | Respondent |
Complaint(s):
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-00011315-001 | 15/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/10/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 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).
Background:
The complainant is employed as an attendant by the respondent. She receives a 12.5% premium on her rate of pay for her additional stores responsibilities. The dispute concerns the alleged failure on the part of the respondent to pay her an acting allowance in respect of the 3.75 hours per week during which she is required to cover for the Hotel Stores Supervisor. The parties made written and oral submission to the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that she is providing supervisory cover and that she has not been paid appropriately. The difference between her rate and that of her supervisor is €6.22 per hour amounting to an annual amount of €1,200. She has been paid acting up allowance in the past when she provided cover for periods of supervisory leave. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that the complainant is not required to cover the 3.75 hours as alleged or indeed any supervisory hours whatsoever. Any such requirement would have to be the subject of competition and appointment as in the past. The complainant’s weekly hours of work (full time requirement) differ from that of the supervisor by 3.75 hours but there is absolutely no requirement for her to cover in those hours. Furthermore there is no legitimate method/framework available in the sector to deal with matters of pay. |
Decision:
Section 41 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. Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
In coming to a recommendation in this matter I note that there is no requirement on the complainant to perform the duties which I acknowledge and believe she has undertaken in the past, that the respondent is constrained in its ability (lack of framework in the sector) to deal with matters of pay and most importantly that a good and valuable relationship exists between the parties. Accordingly I recommend that in that context and without precedent a once off compensatory payment of €1,500 should be paid to the complainant in full and final settlement of the dispute. |
Dated: 16.11.2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes