ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012512
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Security Officer | A Security Company |
Representatives | Paddy Rogers Nathaniel Lacy & Partners | Neil Fitzpatrick G4S Secure Solutions (Ire) Limited |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00015576-001 | 03/11/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00015576-002 | 03/11/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/04/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The complainant is employed by the respondent as a Security Officer since December 2001. The complainant stated that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from his salary when he was transferred to another client site of the respondent and the payment of a Supervisor’s Allowance was removed from him. |
CA-00015576-001
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant stated that on or around 12th May 2017, he was working on a client site during a fire drill. The complainant confirmed that the practice was for staff involved in a fire drill to call at the Security Hut and the Security Officer would record their names as they left. The complainant stated that two employees did not call to sign out at the hut. The complainant’s position is that these two employees complained that he was behaving in a threatening manner towards them as they passed the hut on the basis that he knocked on the window at them and told them that they had to sign out. It transpired that the two employees had been excused from signing out. The complainant confirmed that he was not aware at the time that they had been excused from signing out and was only advised of this afterwards. The complainant stated that he had not behaved in a threatening way and was merely informing them that they should sign out. The complainant stated that he had previously made a complaint in 2013 in relation to these employees as they had continually failed to answer telephone calls which the complainant was required to answer as a result. The complainant stated that they had made the complaint about him on the day of the fire drill because of the previous complaint he had made against them. The complainant stated that he was informed the next day that he would no longer be assigned to that site. The complainant stated as the site had a Supervisors allowance of €50 per week which was site specific, he would suffer a reduction in earnings through no fault of his own. The complainant stated that there was no consultation with him in relation to his transfer or consideration shown to him. The complainant stated that the actions of the employer effectively resulted in a demotion and the removal of the €50 allowance was an unlawful deduction from his salary. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent stated that its client requested that the complainant be relocated from its site as a result of the issue that arose when the two employees failed to sign out during the fire drill. The respondent stated that the €50 supervisor’s allowance was specific to that client site and once the complainant was longer employed at that site, the allowance was no longer payable. The respondent confirmed that it had tried to resolve the issue so that the complainant could remain on the site but it was unable to do so. The respondent confirmed that the client can decide if they do not want a particular Security Officer on site. The respondent stated that in normal circumstances if a contract was lost, the employees would be transferred to other sites and would also lose site specific allowances. The respondent state that the complainant had been continuously informed as to what was happening and was transferred to the nearest available site that was suitable to him. The respondent stated that as a gesture of goodwill, it continued to pay the complainant the €50 site specific allowance for a period of three months after the transfer and had also paid additional travel expenses to the complainant’s new work location. The respondent also stated that the worker had sought to be relocated to a more suitable location which would soon be confirmed to him. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In relation to this complaint I find as follows: The €50 per week supervisor’s allowance is site specific. The removal of the allowance occurred as a result of the complainant’s relocation from the site. I accept the complainant’s evidence that he had done nothing wrong and I also accept that the respondent had tried to resolve the issue with its client and for the complainant to remain on that site. I note that the respondent continued to pay the complainant the allowance for a period of three months and had also paid additional travel expenses to his new work location. I also note that the complainant is soon to be facilitated with a work location that is more suitable to his personal circumstances. In relation to the supervisor’s allowance, I find that as it is site specific and as the complainant no longer works on that site, the payment of the allowance no longer applies. Accordingly, I do not find that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from the complainant’s salary in contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
CA-00015576-002
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant stated that he was not notified in writing of the changes to his contract of employment after he was required to change work location. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent stated that while it was sourcing an alternative work location for the complainant, there were numerous verbal communications with the complainant and he was well aware of the changes that were imminent. The respondent stated that the complainant’s contract of employment specifically states: “Given the nature of the business the company reserves the right to alter your hours of work or your work location. You will be given as much notice as is reasonably practicable of any such alteration.” |
Findings and Conclusions:
In relation to this complaint I find as follows: The complainant’s location of work changed in May 2017. Although there were verbal communications on the issue, the complainant was not notified of the changes in writing as required by the legislation. The Law: Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 states as follows: 5.(1) Subject to subsection (2), whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4or 6, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than— (a) 1 month after the change takes effect, or (b) where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month, the time of the employee’s departure. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a change occurring in provisions of statutes or instruments made under statute other than a registered employment agreement or employment regulation order, or of any other laws or of any administrative provisions or collective agreements referred to in the statement given under section 3or 4. The respondent has not complied with the legislation as outlined above. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is well founded. However, as the complainant was aware of the imminent changes to his work location, I do not find that he suffered any detriment as a result of this breach. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The respondent is directed to provide the complainant with an updated list of his terms and conditions of employment to include his rate of pay and current work location. This document should be issued to the complainant within 42 days of the date of this decision. I make no further award. |
Dated: 1st August 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
|