ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008388

Parties:

 ComplainantRespondentAnonymised PartiesDriver Helper 1 and 2 A local Authority   Representatives SIPTU, Employee Relations

Complaints:

ActDispute Reference No. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 CA-00011338-001 Date Of Receipt. 16/05/2017 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 CA-00011339-001 Date Of Receipt. 16/05/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/09/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle

Procedure:

In accordance Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] following the referral of the Disputes 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 Disputes.  

Background:

On 16 May 2017, the Claimants lodged a claim seeking loss of earnings . the Claim referred to the circumstances surrounding the transition to a Centralised pay system in June 2016 .The Employer rejected the claim .

Summary of Claimant’s Case:

The Union set out the claim for loss of earnings because of the Employer having engaged in an administrative and centralised transfer of its wage function to another entity.

CA-00011338-001 .The Claimant had worked for the Local Authority since June 1, 1998. The Union outlined that the claimant had been denied €193.40 in respect of 8.5 hrs over time worked and sought payment for same. The Union attributed the non-payment to the cross over in the pay systems in June 2016 the claimant had been inconvenienced by the non-payment. CA-00011339-001 The Claimant had worked for the Local Authority since August 9, 1990. The Union outlined that the claimant had been denied €216.16 in respect of 9.5 hrs over time worked and sought payment for same. The Union attributed the non-payment to the cross over in the pay systems in June 2016 the claimant had been inconvenienced by the non-payment.    

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer disputed both claims and gave an outline of the changes which resulted in a shared pay roll and Superannuation services in June 2016 .These changes resulted in staff who were previously paid fortnightly on Fridays ( Sunday to Saturday cycle) moving to a Thursday pay day ( Wednesday to Tuesday cycle) .This change was frontloaded by an advanced payment of 3 days basic pay and standard allowances in June 2016 to be recouped at the end of service .Overtime for the dates 15-17 June were paid on July 7, 2016. The Employer referred to a letter sent to the Unions in this regard on 12 May 2016 and the information was circulated to staff on May 20, 2016. CA-00011338-001: Driver -Helper 1 The Employer set out an overview of the claimants Time Sheets and pay slips for the two fortnightly pay periods referred to in the claim as fortnight 26 and 28. 3 Frontloaded days at basic pay for transition (15-17 June) were included in the Claimants 23 June 2016 Pay Slip 15 June to 28 June 2016: Overtime and Allowances which encompassed Pay Cycle 5 June -14 June and 15 to 28 June were paid on July 7 pay day. The Employer was requested to set this out in a more sequential fashion at the hearing and submitted supporting documentation on 5 October, 2017, which was copied to the claimants Representative. The Employer contended that had the previous pay cycle prevailed, the claimant would have been paid overtime due for 15-17 June 2016 as part of the fortnight 26 pay roll. Instead he was paid as part of fortnight 28 pay roll. He Employer submitted that this had been communicated to staff. CA-00011339-001 The Employer set out an overview of the claimants Time Sheets and pay slips for the two fortnightly pay periods referred to in the claim as fortnight 26 and 28. 3 Frontloaded days at basic pay for transition (15-17 June) were included in the Claimants 23 June 2016 Pay Slip 15 June to 28 June 2016: Overtime and Allowances which encompassed Pay Cycle 5 June -14 June and 15 to 28 June were paid on July 7 pay day. The Employer was requested to set this out in a more sequential fashion at the hearing and submitted supporting documentation on 5 October, 2017, which was copied to the claimants Representative. The Employer contended that had the previous pay cycle prevailed, the claimant would have been paid overtime due for 15-17 June 2016 as part of the fortnight 26 pay roll. Instead he was paid as part of fortnight 28 pay roll. He Employer submitted that this had been communicated to staff.  

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00011338-001 I have considered the claim for loss of earnings made by the claimant. I allowed a considerable period at the hearing for clarifications of the claim. It was clear to me that that were some communication deficits in exactly how each payment was to be managed in the crucial period of June and July 2016. I noted that there wasn’t a locally based helpline available at that time which may have gone some way to resolving the issue. The Claimant was clear that he normally earned a higher figure than he received in fortnight 26 and 28 and contended that he had lost earnings of €193.40. I requested the Employer to furnish a report on how overtime hours were calculated pre-and post-changeover and allowed the parties the option of reconvening. The report was furnished on October 5 ,2016 and circulated to the Union. I did not receive a further comment in that regard. I thought it best to move to the Recommendation stage of the process. Having considered all the documents before me, I could not establish that the claimant had demonstrated a loss of earnings in the transition to the centralised pay system in June 2016.I have not found merit in this Dispute.

CA-00011339-001 I have considered the claim for loss of earnings made by the claimant. I allowed a considerable period at the hearing for clarifications of the claim. It was clear to me that that were some communication deficits in exactly how each payment was to be managed in the crucial period of June and July 2016. I noted that there wasn’t a locally based helpline available at that time. The Claimant was clear that he normally earned a higher figure than he received in fortnight 26 and 28 and contended that he had lost gross earnings of €216.16. I requested the Employer to furnish a report on how overtime hours were calculated for pay purposes pre-and post-changeover and allowed the parties the option of reconvening. The report was furnished on October 5 ,2016 and circulated to the Union. I did not receive a further comment in that regard. I thought it best to move to Recommendation stage of the process. Having considered the documents before me, I could not establish that the claimant had demonstrated a loss of earnings in the transition to the centralised pay system in June 2016.I have not found merit in this Dispute.    

Recommendations:

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

CA-00011338-001I have not found merit in the Dispute.

CA-00011339-001 I have not found merit in the Dispute.  

Dated:   01.02.2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle

Key Words: Change in Pay Roll system