Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Production Services Facilitator

A Pharma 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-00015091-001

18/10/2017

This case is conjoined with ADJ 11338. The background to the case is identical. The Claim before the WRC stated that the claimant sought full payment of overtime with retrospection. Both parties submitted written submissions.

The Claimant works as a Production Services Facilitator in a Pharma company. He receives a gross pay of €1,000 per week prior to over time or bonus payment. The Claimant has taken on a higher role since 2013 and he claims that he has been underpaid at €7.94 per hour. He attributes the variance in overtime payments made to stand at €20,544.75 in respect of 1725 hours on time plus ½ rate. He also claimed €3,029.11 differential on double time. The Union on behalf of the claimant sought to recover this loss.

The Employer rejected the claim and approached their response from a different angle. The Employer submitted details of the Union/Management Agreement on overtime.

1.       Determined by the needs of the plant.

2.       Decided by management.

3.       No level of overtime guaranteed.

4.       Must be authorised by management.

The Employer submitted that the claimant had engaged in unapproved overtime before being addressed by his then manager, when instances of working unauthorised overtime stopped.

The Employer interpreted the claim as arising from a defined period April to July 2017 and contended that the claimant had been adequately paid for all approved overtime. The Employer submitted that the claimant had deviated from the agreed 1 hr additional attendance per day and had sought payment retrospectively for overtime worked without approval. They argued that this was an inconsistent and unfair practice where Management Authority was by passed.

The Claimant had agreed to a specific overtime allocation to facilitate his attendance at an early morning and after priorities meetings commitment but ignored this standing instruction.

The Employer requested that the claim be dismissed as the claimant had not activated the grievance procedure.

The Employer was not prepared to countenance a retrospective claim for overtime to 2013 as it had not been raised at plant level prior to the hearing and was without merit.

I have carefully considered this claim and the parties responses. Due to the extreme brevity of the text on the complaint form, I did not have a clear understanding of the parameters of the claim prior to the hearing. It appears that this followed in the party’s case also. The Claimant introduced the claim as an addendum to ADJ 11338.

I had advised the parties on the first day of hearing that conjoined claims are permissible on a single complaint form. For the Employers part, they had experienced a clear difficulty in securing the claimants agreement on implementation of a discretionary overtime allowance of 1 hour per day cited in an email dated 5 th April 2017. They presumed the claim arose from this contentious period.

For my part, I found the completely different approaches adopted to the same claim to be reflective of the current state of the employment relationship between the parties which is underpinned by exasperation on both sides. The parties had a meeting in April 2017 from where a stated position on discretionary overtime was recorded. This appears to have been disregarded by the claimant while faced with the unresolved hybrid role issue.

The Clause 17 of the Company Overtime Agreement, as submitted by the respondent   needs to be reviewed to take account of presiding legislation on Sunday and Public Holiday working.

Given the commitment expressed by both parties to the proposed resolution in ADJ 11338, I would suggest that overtime be delineated as a term of reference in the forthcoming review and both parties must then commit to implementation of any agreement which emerges. It will be important that both sides are heard in this discussion.

I have found some merit in the dispute which can be addressed by the Action plan agreed in ADJ 11338. Any issues which emerge in the future should be advanced through the company grievance procedure. In the meantime, the Personalised Agreement to the claimant of April 5, 2017 should prevail.

I cannot find in favour of the claim for retrospection on overtime to 2013.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I have found some merit in the dispute which can be addressed on a “going forward “basis by the Action plan agreed in ADJ 11338. Any issues which emerge in the future should be advanced through the company grievance procedure.

Over time