ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013420
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Bus Escort | School |
Representatives | Rachel Hartery SIPTU | Did not attend |
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-00017388-001 | 12/02/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/09/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant works as a bus escort and has been employed as such since September 2014. She works 4 hours a day and is paid €249.40 per week. Her employment had no incident or concern until there was a change in contract to a bus agency in September 2016. She began experiencing difficulties with the driver and raised a grievance with the school principal. A formal grievance was investigated by an inspector. The grievance was partly a harassment complaint and also a complaint of extra working hours due to the driver’s insistence on stopping to refuel, wash the bus and carry out some maintenance and discussions with the mechanic. There has been no resolution to this dispute and the Complainant remains absent from work due to the stress and anxiety of the situation in which she found herself. A meeting was held in November 2017 but no solution was forthcoming. A number of other meetings were held and in February 2018 the inspector sent his report to the school. The matters still remain unresolved and the detours the driver undertook result in a waste of the Complainant’s time. She offered solutions, either pay her for the extra time or the detours cease. It is noted that the Principal advised the complainant that she was not in a position to advise until the WRC hearing took place. Yet, the Principal then wrote to the WRC stating she would not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. Correspondence received by the Commission dated 20th September 2018 stated that having received the benefit of legal advice, the school did not believe there was a case to answer and the matter “is not a trade dispute within the meaning of the Act”. |
Recommendation:
It is regrettable that the Respondent did not attend the hearing to present their response to this protracted dispute. From the evidence presented however, I note that the School Principal made many attempts to clarify and try to see if resolution could be found. However, I note the somewhat intransigent tone of the main transport provider and the contractor as expressed in the correspondence. I find that this has added to the stress experienced by the Complainant. The Respondent has a duty of care to the Complainant, who is an employee of the school. I recommend that the parties once again engage in outlining what is the possible solution to the issues, bearing in mind that the School is a customer albeit, at once removed from the particular contractor. The Complainant has been at a loss of wages due to long term sick leave and I recommend that she be paid compensation of €600 for the delay in resolving this situation.