ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007442
Complaint:
|
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-00010010-001 | 02/03/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/08/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969-2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant submits that he has been unfairly treated by the Respondent over some years which resulted in him receiving fewer work runs, which adversely affected his earnings. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant has been employed by the Respondent since 1978. It is contended that for over twenty years the complainant was subject to unfavourable treatment in comparison to other Drivers. A number of detailed complaints were outlined, which the Complainant submitted against his immediate Manager. These are summarised as follows: Less favourable runs not necessarily appearing on the rosters, which enabled other Drivers to receive backloads (Drivers paid by the load), Other Drivers commencing work earlier thus enabling them to return for further loads Problems regarding sick leave and having to go to the Company Doctor, and annual leave carryover, The refusal of the Manager to answer the Complainant’s calls, Duress to achieve 93% gross legal weight, Disputes over Saturday working and contractors loading before direct employees, where the Complainant felt he was being discriminated against. Following a meeting with Management in July 2016, a set of principles were agreed between the parties. These principles were designed to end the treatment that the Complainant was receiving. It is contended that while the principles were adhered to by senior management, no difference emerged in the way the Complainant was treated by his Manager. It is contended that the Complainant was treated differently than the other Drivers and that he should be compensated for the financial loss this discrimination caused, and further he should be compensated for having to endure over twenty years of bullying. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The background to the work organisation was outlined, summarised as follows: Drivers are paid a piece rate. They are paid per loaded mile (e.g. they are only paid for the mileage completed when their truck is loaded with product). All Drivers are contracted to work a basic week of 39 hours at a basic rate of €13.07 per hour. They are paid a piece rate which equates to €1.83 per loaded mile. Drivers from time to time would work additional hours. This opportunity is afforded to all Drivers. The Transport Manager is responsible for drawing up the Drivers rosters. While these rosters are subject to change in line with customer requirements, for the most part they are drawn up and communicated to all Drivers the previous week. When a Driver is given a route, he mostly drives the same route for the week. Routes change from week to week based on customer requirements and shipping schedules and to give each Driver a balanced work opportunity. In the case of the Complainant, he starts his day by picking up his vehicle at his depot. Depending on the product, he may load his vehicle at the depot or may be required to drive to another site to load. All Drivers are the same in this regard. It takes approximately 20 minutes to load a vehicle. To ensure the Drivers are not waiting around, they are rostered 20 minutes apart e.g. Driver # 1 7.am Driver # 2 7.20am Driver # 3 7.40am |
These start times are rotated among the Drivers – there is no exact pattern identified either in favour or against the Complainant or any other Driver. In addition to being rostered, Drivers also have the opportunity of picking up additional runs and ‘back loads’. In comparison to his colleagues, the Complainant tends not to opt to pick up these additional loads. This has the potential to affect his earnings. It is submitted that there is simply no evidence to back up the Complainant’s contention that he is being treated differently or unfairly in comparison to his colleagues. His average hourly rate is equivalent or in some cases higher than his colleagues. From an analysis of earnings (2016), the Complainant is earning an average hourly rate of €25.38 in comparison to his colleagues (€25.18 and €25.61). It should be noted that the Complainant has raised the issues as part of an internal grievance process which was concluded and reviewed in July 2016. The outcome included a commitment from the Complainant to put the past behind him and move on from 20th July 2016. It was further outlined in that agreement that if he had any other issue, he could raise it with his immediate line manager (MC). The matter was reviewed again in November 2016 and no significant issues were raised. It is submitted that as the matter has been closed, and the statistical data shows no unfavourable treatment, the Company’s position should be upheld. |
Recommendation:
The Complainant’s grievances were fully dealt with through procedures. I particularly note the agreement dated 20th July 2016 with the company, the relevant trade unions and the Complainant in which the Complainant agreed to move forward from his disputes. It would appear that the Complainant continued to have grievances about earnings, mileage and opportunities to do more runs than his colleagues. I have examined the evidence and find that the statistical data provided by the company shows no adverse treatment of the Complainant. There was no complaint of bullying and harassment lodged by the Complainant to the Company and I therefore find that there can be no adjudication on this issue in the instant case. I recommend that the Complainant draw a line under the disputes, as I can find no evidence to recommend against the company in this case. |
Dated: 04/10/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007442
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | John Conroy | Bord Na Mona |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Driver | Semi State Company |
Representatives | David Lane SIPTU | Roisin Bradley, Ibec Andrew Mahon Joe Slevin Oliver Hickey Susan Ryan |
Complaint:
|
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-00010010-001 | 02/03/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/08/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969-2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant submits that he has been unfairly treated by the Respondent over some years which resulted in him receiving fewer work runs, which adversely affected his earnings. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant has been employed by the Respondent since 1978. It is contended that for over twenty years the complainant was subject to unfavourable treatment in comparison to other Drivers. A number of detailed complaints were outlined, which the Complainant submitted against his immediate Manager. These are summarised as follows: Less favourable runs not necessarily appearing on the rosters, which enabled other Drivers to receive backloads (Drivers paid by the load), Other Drivers commencing work earlier thus enabling them to return for further loads Problems regarding sick leave and having to go to the Company Doctor, and annual leave carryover, The refusal of the Manager to answer the Complainant’s calls, Duress to achieve 93% gross legal weight, Disputes over Saturday working and contractors loading before direct employees, where the Complainant felt he was being discriminated against. Following a meeting with Management in July 2016, a set of principles were agreed between the parties. These principles were designed to end the treatment that the Complainant was receiving. It is contended that while the principles were adhered to by senior management, no difference emerged in the way the Complainant was treated by his Manager. It is contended that the Complainant was treated differently than the other Drivers and that he should be compensated for the financial loss this discrimination caused, and further he should be compensated for having to endure over twenty years of bullying. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The background to the work organisation was outlined, summarised as follows: Drivers are paid a piece rate. They are paid per loaded mile (e.g. they are only paid for the mileage completed when their truck is loaded with product). All Drivers are contracted to work a basic week of 39 hours at a basic rate of €13.07 per hour. They are paid a piece rate which equates to €1.83 per loaded mile. Drivers from time to time would work additional hours. This opportunity is afforded to all Drivers. The Transport Manager is responsible for drawing up the Drivers rosters. While these rosters are subject to change in line with customer requirements, for the most part they are drawn up and communicated to all Drivers the previous week. When a Driver is given a route, he mostly drives the same route for the week. Routes change from week to week based on customer requirements and shipping schedules and to give each Driver a balanced work opportunity. In the case of the Complainant, he starts his day by picking up his vehicle at his depot. Depending on the product, he may load his vehicle at the depot or may be required to drive to another site to load. All Drivers are the same in this regard. It takes approximately 20 minutes to load a vehicle. To ensure the Drivers are not waiting around, they are rostered 20 minutes apart e.g. Driver # 1 7.am Driver # 2 7.20am Driver # 3 7.40am |
These start times are rotated among the Drivers – there is no exact pattern identified either in favour or against the Complainant or any other Driver. In addition to being rostered, Drivers also have the opportunity of picking up additional runs and ‘back loads’. In comparison to his colleagues, the Complainant tends not to opt to pick up these additional loads. This has the potential to affect his earnings. It is submitted that there is simply no evidence to back up the Complainant’s contention that he is being treated differently or unfairly in comparison to his colleagues. His average hourly rate is equivalent or in some cases higher than his colleagues. From an analysis of earnings (2016), the Complainant is earning an average hourly rate of €25.38 in comparison to his colleagues (€25.18 and €25.61). It should be noted that the Complainant has raised the issues as part of an internal grievance process which was concluded and reviewed in July 2016. The outcome included a commitment from the Complainant to put the past behind him and move on from 20th July 2016. It was further outlined in that agreement that if he had any other issue, he could raise it with his immediate line manager (MC). The matter was reviewed again in November 2016 and no significant issues were raised. It is submitted that as the matter has been closed, and the statistical data shows no unfavourable treatment, the Company’s position should be upheld. |
Recommendation:
The Complainant’s grievances were fully dealt with through procedures. I particularly note the agreement dated 20th July 2016 with the company, the relevant trade unions and the Complainant in which the Complainant agreed to move forward from his disputes. It would appear that the Complainant continued to have grievances about earnings, mileage and opportunities to do more runs than his colleagues. I have examined the evidence and find that the statistical data provided by the company shows no adverse treatment of the Complainant. There was no complaint of bullying and harassment lodged by the Complainant to the Company and I therefore find that there can be no adjudication on this issue in the instant case. I recommend that the Complainant draw a line under the disputes, as I can find no evidence to recommend against the company in this case. |
Dated: 04/10/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham