Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Revenue Inspector

Public Transport Company

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-00011908-001

15/06/2017

The Complainant is employed as a Revenue District Traffic Executive (DTE). He is paid €1,096.00 per week. He is employed since 2007. He has claimed for an on-call allowance.

The Complainant stated that he is one of four Revenue District Traffic Executives in the country. The other three are in receipt of an on-call allowance consisting of 10 % of basic pay. The Respondent company has refused to grant this payment in parity with his colleagues. It is his understanding that the Director had agreed to this but the Chief Executive Officer refused to sign off on it. One of the comparators based in Dublin holds the same post and manages 8 staff. There is one in Cork in receipt of this allowance and he no longer is in charge of a team. A third comparator in Cork manages a team of 7/8 staff. He is responsible for 7 teams with a total of 23 staff. This allowance amounts to €109.67 per week. He is seeking that this is paid with effect from 20^th September 2010 upon his appointment as a DTE.

The Respondent stated that the company had traditionally required certain staff to be available as and when required and had an allowance called an on-call paid. Previous holders of DTE jobs may have been required to attend duty outside of their normal roster and as a consequence they were paid a 10 % on-call allowance. If the role did not require this condition then no on-call allowance was paid. On 20^th September 2010 he was appointed DTE. His role was to supervise Revenue Protection Officers roster and record annual leave and illness, address performance issues and tackle fare evasion. His predecessors did not have this on call payment. In October 2016 he raised this with his manager. He was told that he wasn’t on call, wasn’t required to attend at a scene of an accident, wasn’t required to respond to point failures/track faults signalling issues, level crossing failures or fatalities and he wasn’t on the on call roster for call out by the Infrastructure department and so he was informed that there was no entitlement to this allowance. A meeting took place on 25^th May 2017 regarding his claim at which he advised that the number of staff he supervises had increased from 9 to 21 and this he felt entitled him to an on-call allowance. He was advised by the Respondent that an increase in volume of work does not justify an on-call allowance; neither does the fact that others have been paid this allowance historically. There is no requirement for the complainant to be on-call. Where he has to make a pre-planned out of hours visit or attend duty at concerts he receives time in lieu. He took 25.35 lieu days in 2016 and 15 year to date. If a Revenue Officer is involved in an accident there is no requirement for him to attend for duty. The three comparators named have the on-call allowance on a historical basis in their contracts. This payment is no longer warranted and the company will be engaging with those individuals shortly in relation to this matter.

It is their position that the Complainant accepted a position that did not include an on-call allowance. His role does not require him to be on-call so no allowance is warranted. Where he attends duty outside of normal roster he is granted time in lieu. His two predecessors did not have this allowance. Any new employee entering the grade will be treated in the same manner and not receive an on-call allowance. Concession of this claim will lead to other employees requesting the same consideration. This claim is rejected.

I note the dispute over what action is required on receipt of texts/calls.

I note the dispute over what actual cover is required for the management of the Revenue Protection Officers.

I note the Employer’s position that the Complainant was not required to take any action other than record the communications received from the Team members.

I note that the Complainant is not required to be available on-call.

I note that the Complainant is not required to stay on, is not required to attend any call outs or attend at emergency situations.

I find that “on-call” must mean something concrete such as: you are required to be available to take action, it would impact on your personal time, it limits your availability to leisure time etc. and in return you are compensated.

In this case no such action /intervention is required.

I find that these are historical allowances.

I note the Employer’s position that if the three comparators were to leave the employment the allowance would not be given to their successors.

I note that his predecessors did not have this allowance.

I accept the Employer’s position that there would be knock on implications with this claim if conceded.

I note the Employer’s desire to eliminate /close off the allowance with the three comparators.

I find that the Employer must be able to move on and change its ways of operation to reflect a current situation.

I have found that the Complainant has not established a case for this allowance to be granted to him.

I find that this complaint is not well founded.

I recommend that this claim fails for the above stated reasons

On –Call allowance