ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008173
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | (Complainant) | (Respondent) |
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-00010821-001 | 13/04/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/08/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Walsh
Procedure:
In accordance Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the disputes 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 employed with the Respondent since the 9th of April 1973. He currently works as a District Traffic Executive. In taking up this position, he was advised that he was going to be paid monthly by way of electronic fund transfer. He has objected to this form of payment. He failed to resolve the matter with the Respondent and he filed a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 13th of April 2017. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant’s representative stated that the Complainant was seconded to the role of District Traffic Executive in 2013. On the 8th of July 2015 he was appointed to a permanent position in this role. However, part of the conditions of appointment was that the payment of his wages would be made on a monthly basis by way of electronic fund transfer. He objected to this condition as he had been paid on a weekly basis by cash since his employment began on the 9th of April 1973. He believes that he should be appointed to the permanent position without having to accept a monthly payment of his wages and that he should continue to be paid by cash on a weekly basis. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated that discussions took place on pension scheme issues where there were a significant number of people who had to take up positions on secondments, and all of those have been offered the same terms in relation to the method that their wages would be paid. The vast majority of the employees involved in this have accepted the terms that they will be paid on a monthly basis rather than on a weekly basis. A small number of employees (16) are still refusing to be paid by the month. The Complainant is one of these. At a recent meeting it was outlined to the individuals concerned that they would have until the end of September to agree to accept their positions on the basis outlined i.e. monthly wage payments, or the company would have no option but to return them to their previous working positions. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I find that the complaint taken by the Complainant is currently being processed in a collective manner by their trade union. Therefore, I am unwilling to adjudicate on a collective matter that is already in process. As an adjudicator, I can only adjudicate on individual complaints and not on collective complaints. |
Recommendation:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, I recommend that the collective process that is already underway be allowed to reach completion. I am unable to adjudicate on a collective dispute as an adjudicator. I can only adjudicate on individual disputes.
Dated: 05th September 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Walsh