ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013295
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Contract Bar Person | An Staff Placement Company |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00017424-001 | 13/02/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/06/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The issue concerns work practice issues that arose, during February 2018, for the Complainant at a number of large music concerts at a major City venue. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
At a series of major concerts, the Complainant and a number of his colleagues were directed by the venue management to move temporarily from Bar duties to assist the Security Staff in a crowd management situation. The Bar staff were employed in helping to form a human chain /barrier through the audience to allow the featured band to do a “run through the crowd” to the stage. This proved to be an extremely stressful duty as the audience were quite excited and difficult to control. Much pushing and shoving was involved and the Complainant was extremely uncomfortable and indeed fearful for his own safety. He has no Security training and being of small stature was particularly vulnerable in a situation where thousands of teenagers were pushing and shoving in a completely excitable state. His contract of employment is as a Bar Person/General Operative and has no Security duties of the nature required by the “Run Through”. Efforts to seek resolution or assurance from his Employer had not, he felt, proved successful. The Complainant admitted that the Complaint was somewhat unusual but he had referred the Complaint under Section 7 of the Act for want of a better choice of legislative remedy. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent, who is a staff supply agency, was anxious to amicably resolve this issue. Agency Staff at the venue concerned are occasionally requested by the Venue Management to engage/assist in this type of “Run-Through” by Bands/Performers. It is an infrequent duty and they felt was a purely voluntary choice for the bar Staff. On foot of the Complainant’s complaint they had raised the issue with the Venue management and now felt that the issue had been clarified to every one’s satisfaction. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
As a preliminary it was accepted by the Adjudicator that the Complaint was valid under the terms of the Act – there was a valid case to be made for a complaint under Sections 5 - Notifications of Changes & Section 6 of the Act – Existing contracts of employment. At the Oral Hearing there was considerable discussion between the Adjudicator and the Parties in relation to the matters at hand. The Respondents, while initially satisfied with their response, undertook at the suggestion of the Adjudication officer to seriously look again at their policies in this area. An informal but full consultation with their Insurance and Liability providers was to be undertaken. In the interim they undertook to write to the Complainant and reassure him formally that the duties of assisting with a “Run-through” would not be requested of him again. As the Complainant requested a formal Adjudication decision I set this out below. |
4: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 Section 7: 2 states as follows
(2) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 shall do one or more of the following, namely —
( a ) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,
( b ) either —
(i) confirm all or any of the particulars contained or referred to in any statement furnished by the employer under section 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 , or
(ii) alter or add to any such statement for the purpose of correcting any inaccuracy or omission in the statement and the statement as so altered or added to shall be deemed to have been given to the employee by the employer,
( c ) require the employer to give or cause to be given to the employee concerned a written statement containing such particulars as may be specified by the adjudication officer,
( d ) order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks ’ remuneration in respect of the employee ’ s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 .
Accordingly, I make the following declaration.
- The Complaint was well founded.
(c) The Respondent employer provide the Complainant with a clear statement regarding his position in relation to “Concert band Walk/Run throughs” - this to be that this duty is of a voluntary nature for the employee.
In addition, the Respondent is to quickly seek the advice of his Professional Security, Insurance and Liability advisors regarding the entire practice.
(d) As the Complaint was deemed to be well founded the Respondent to pay an amount of € 250 as compensation for the all the circumstances leading to the making of the Complainant.
Dated: 15/08/18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words: