Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Chemist Inspector

Inspection and Testing Company

Representatives

Appeared in Person  

John Barry Management Support Services (Ireland) Ltd

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00010602-002

30/03/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00010602-003

30/03/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00010602-004

30/03/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00010602-005

30/03/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00010602-006

30/03/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00010602-008

30/03/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00010602-009

30/03/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00010602-010

30/03/2017

The Complainant has presented several complaints to the WRC under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. At the heart of the complaint lies the Complainants concerns about a lack of a recognisable pattern or system of work. The Respondent has submitted that the type of work undertaken by the Complainant falls into one of the exempted areas under the Act and has sought recognition of this exemption. There is a dearth of contemporaneous records from either party. The Complainant has also submitted claims under the IR Act and under Equal Pay Legislation.

The Complainant gave an outline of his case and explained that he worked as a Surveyor for Petrochemical product imported and exported from this country. This involved boarding Oil tankers berthed at sea. These tankers operate on a night and day basis over 365 days of the year His annual salary was €47,886.34, the number of hours worked were not set.

He submitted that the Company did not maintain records of his working hours and had submitted separate complaints to the WRC Inspectorate. The Complainant raised seven complaints under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

The Complainant referred to Ship Inspections lasting 6 to 7 hours. He explained that he had come to the hearing straight from an all-night shift and was due to return to the ship after the hearing. He undertook to furnish documents to particularise his claims.

The Complainant submitted a further document on 8 September 2017 which contained some records of his work.

1.CA-00010602-002

The Complainant submitted that he did not receive a weekly rest period during Inspections. He did not receive 11-hour rest periods and had received 4 hours’ rest period at intervals .The Complainant contended that he was “ constantly working” without the required rest break .On the day of the hearing , the Complainant was unable to particularise the instances of alleged breaches of Section 13 of the Act and undertook to furnish details in support of his claim .On 8 September the Complainant forwarded a list of shifts worked in November 2016 .He stated that he worked every day of the month bar two on-call days on 19-20 November .He stated that he had not received a 24 hour rest period preceded by 11 hours .He stated that he had not received an official day off with notice over December 2016 and January 2017.

2.CA-00010602-003

The Complainant submitted that he was required to work more than the maximum hours permitted under the Act. In a previous year, he stated that he had worked for an average of 51 hours per week over the course of a year exclusive of Stand-by and On -Call time.

CA-00010602-004

The Complainant submitted that he had not received his annual leave entitlement. He stated that the Company had not maintained records before 2016. He was denied an opportunity to carry over outstanding leave from 2015 or receive payment in lieu. On 8 September, 2017, the Complainant informed the WRC that his annual leave issue had been resolved and he had been granted his leave in total.

CA-00010602-005

The Complainant submitted that his start and finish times are not set and he lacked a system and pattern of work. The Tankers for his Inspection did not run to schedule and he received an email at 17.00 hrs as to what ships he is to attend in any of 6 named locations. Thus, notice to attend could be a 10-hour period and finish time coincide with job completion. This could involve staying on board for 30 hours. He outlined that comparable services had surmounted the challenge of agreeing a work system for start and finish times .

CA-00010602-006

The Complainant submitted that he was not notified of any additional hours in advance.

CA-00010602-008

The Complainant submitted that he worked excessive Night hours. He contended that he worked over 12 hours at night on a regular basis. He had been denied a shift rate. He submitted that he was apprehensive of being at risk of accident at work or when driving to or from work. This pattern was described as a variant from the terms of the contract of employment.

CA-000106002-009 Industrial Relations Act

The Claimant submitted a complaint in relation to a Disciplinary sanction applied. The Claimant referred to having submitted a complaint on his excessive hours worked, only to receive a change of attitude from his Employer early in 2016. He submitted that he was called to a meeting at the company office and denied representation. He understood that he had been issued with a disciplinary sanction. He also contended that his working pay and conditions had deteriorated after that meeting.

CA-000106002-010 Equal Pay

The Complainant submitted that he had not received Equal Pay. He had received a lower bonus than his colleagues. He submitted that he had received a lower pay rise than his co-workers for the past two years.

Pay rise:

Complainant: 2016 2%         Colleagues 2016 8%

Complainant: 2017 1%       Colleagues 7%

The Complainant submitted that he was asked to return his Company Car while on sick leave, while his Colleagues on sick leave for periods of 3 and 6 months were not asked to return their company owned Vehicles.

The Complainant submitted that a colleague Mr A had received a 4% bonus while he had received a 2% bonus in January 2016. He stated that he had not received a bonus in 2015

The Company Representative outlined a response on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent is involved in the Certification, Inspection and Testing Industry and provides services and training to a wide range of Industries.

The Complainant in the case is employed as a Surveyor in the Oil and Gas division. This requires him to attend a range of sites which are based in Ports around the Country, but principally in the Southern Region.

The Respondent outlined a fluidity to the complainants working arrangements which were dependent on shipping arrivals, which in turn is weather dependent. The Respondent agreed that he Complainant could be required to board a ship prior to arrival at Port or when docked to fulfil his duties.

These duties require him to be on site in the location when the Ship comes to harbour and commences discharge. This entails a 4-5 hour (two visits) per ship commitment. This could increase to a commitment to several ships and a parallel communication framework exists.

The Respondent outlined that the Complainants working time varied depending on demand and location. His salary is annualised and incorporates unsocial hours and the total annual hours which jet may be required to work would normally be less than or equivalent to a shore based 5-day position.

The Complainant, as a Surveyor is placed on a weekly rotation system with an on-call commitment. The Respondent submitted that the estimated arrival times of the Vessels is not governed by absolute certainty. This was described as a basic and fundamental part of the sector and was supported by regular updates and communiques during the process.

The Respondent sought the application of the exemptions under the Organisation of Working Time (general Exemptions) Act Regulations, 1998 in terms of SS 11, 12, 13 and 16 of the Act, citing that the complainant was involved in the first an instance in:

“an activity in which an employee is regularly required by the employer to travel distances of significant length, either from his or her home to the workplace or from one workplace to another workplace (including off shore work) …. “

Secondly, contended that the complainant’s activities fell within an activity falling within a sector of the economy or in the public service

“in which it is foreseeable that the rate at which production or the provision of services as the case maybe, takes place will vary significantly from time to time “and is involved in “the production, transmission or distribution of gas, water or electricity and the provision of services at a Harbour or an Airport “

The Respondent identified that the cognisable period for these claims is from 1 October, 2016 to 31 March 2017.

The Company requires surveyors to maintain a record of their hours worked. This had recently been updated by means of a standard form, created on the recommendation of an Inspector of the WRC. The Respondent submitted a record of the Complainants attendance at ships from January 2016 to 31 March 2017.

On 9 November 2017, the Respondent furnished a responding submission to further documentation received from the Complainant.

The Respondent outlined the principle of “Demurrage” which is a centuries old concept and refers to penalties placed on a party responsible for the time delay in the discharge of a vessel. Stakeholders set their resources and arrangements to ensure significant contingencies. The Inspectors work less than their contracted hours and their time utilisation is low. The Surveyors split the cover on some ships for up to 12 rather than 8 hours.

The Respondent disputed the claims .

CA-00010602-002 The Respondent disputed the claim under Section 13 of the Act and submitted that the circumstances of the case required that an exemption existed under the Act. The Respondent confirmed that because of the exemption, the complainant would have received compensatory rest periods of more than forty-eight hours within a two-week period. This discharged the company’s responsibilities under the Act. The Respondent submitted a record of the Complainants location during the cognisable period. This varied from the Complainants records.

In response to the complainant’s supplementary submission, the Respondent submitted that that the inspectors sought to split cover on some ships for up to 12 rather than 8 hours. The Respondents Representative added that the Complainant had not worked to the level of hours paid for.

CA-00010602-003

The Respondent disputed that the average of 48 hours working each week over a period of four months had not been breached. The Respondent confirmed that the complainant may on occasion work a long day due to the late arrival of a ship. The Respondent sought liberty to access the six-month window for averaging due to the seasonal nature of the business.

CA-00010602-004

The Respondent confirmed that the Company was in discussions with the Complainant on this aspect of his claim.

CA-00010602-005 Start and Finish Times

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant is issued a roster indicating start and anticipated completion time. The Respondent outlined that the Complainant ought to be aware of the exigencies of the business where the positives outweigh the negative regarding working time.

During his work the Complainant may not have to report anywhere, as a Ship may not be anticipated. During this time, whilst on duty, he is not required to be on site but available when called. The Respondent relied on Section 17(4) of the Act on Unforeseen Circumstances where the Complainant would be required to stay on to finish work.

The Respondent submitted that they followed Section 17 of the Act. All stakeholders are copied on the work schedule with scope for Individual updates through a phone call to the Respondent office. The Complainant was not compliant with the Uniform recording system.

CA-00010602-006 Notification of Additional Hours

The Respondent re-affirmed the Company position on Section 17(4) of the Act on Unforeseen circumstances factoring into the Complainants work schedules. The Respondent stressed that the Complainant understood additional hours may be required dependent on arrival and non-arrival of ships.

CA-00010602-008 Excessive night Work

The Respondent contended that the Complainant did not fulfil the statutory criteria of a Night worker in accordance with Section 16 of the Act. The hours of work vary between day and night dependent on the demands of the business and are outside the parameters of Section 16.

CA-00010602-009 Industrial Relations Act Dispute

The Employer outlined that the claimant had been the subject of a complaint from their main Operations site. The Complaint was presented to the claimant and once he responded by way of written report the matter was closed. The company had not activated the company Disciplinary procedure in relation to the complaint. The claimant had difficulty in accepting this and sought further verification that his file was clear of Disciplinary records. It was.

The Employer submitted that this matter was prematurely before the WRC and sought a recommendation that the parties be advised to exhaust local procedures prior to the intervention of the WRC.

CA-00010602-010 Equal Pay

The Respondent disputed the claim. The Complainant had not attributed his complaint to any grounds and referred to a comparative group of “co -workers”. The Complainant would have to maintain that he received a less favourable rate of pay than a named female and the reason for this was his gender.

The Company Representative stated that the Company did not employ female surveyors at the time the claim was lodged, therefore the claim was unsustainable.

I have considered the oral and written submissions of the parties. The first issue I must explore and decide on is whether the Respondent is entitled to avail of the exemptions referred to by way of The Organisation of Working Time (General Exemptions) Regulations 1998 (S.I 21/1998)?

EU Regulation on Working Time originated with Directive 93/104/EC, which confirmed that the Directive was a Health and Safety measure. Directive 2003/88/EC consolidated and replaced this Directive. Additional groups of workers, such as hospital staff, road maritime, railway, off shore workers and workers in the aviation Industry are now covered in the amended Directive 2003/88. Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 is incorporated in Section 2 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and provides that working time means any time that an employee is

(I)At his place of work or at his employer’s disposal and

(ii) carrying on or performing the duties or activities of his work

Padhraic Lyons and Emmet Whelan in the Murphy, O Reagan Book. Employment law, outlined that

“the stated purpose of the Directive 93/104 was to enhance the safety and welfare of workers and to provide for greater compatibility between work and family life.”

In line with Directive 93/104, Section 3 of the 1997 Act provides that certain aspects of the Act (SS.11-18) shall not apply to

1 Maritime Workers

2 Doctors in training

3 Family Workers

4 Workers who self-determine their working hours.

Section 3 (3) The Minister may, after consultation with any other Minister of the Government who, in the opinion of the Minister, might be concerned with the matter, by regulations exempt from the application of a specified provision or provisions of this Act persons employed in any specified class or classes of activity—

(a) involving or connected with the transport (by whatever means) of goods or persons, or

(b) in the civil protection services where, in the opinion of the Minister and any other Minister of the Government in whom functions stand vested in relation to the service concerned, the inherent nature of the activity is such that, if the provision concerned were to apply to the said person, the efficient operation of the service concerned would be adversely affected.

The protections of the 1997 Act have been supplemented by the Directive 2003/88 in the form of Statutory Instruments dealing with transport workers, off shore workers, doctors in training and mobile workers.

Section 4(3) and (4) of the 1997 Act provides the Minister with a power to create exemptions by way of Ministerial regulation from SS 11, 12 ,13, 16 and 17 of the Act.

The Organisation of Working Time (General Exemptions) Regulations 1998 (S.I 21/1998) provide for exemptions under SS 11, 12,13 and 16 for persons “wholly or mainly” employed in the following activities

1 Workers regularly required to travel significant distances between home and work, between two workplaces, including off shore work.

……

3 An activity falling within a sector of the economy or in the public services where Production or service requirement vary significantly but the employee’s presence is necessary to ensure continuity, relating to

……

(ii) provision of services at a harbour or airport.

(v) the production, transmission or distribution of gas water or electricity

(vii) An Industrial activity in which work cannot because of considerations of a technical nature be interrupted.

In Coastal Line Container, ltd V SIPTU and Minister for Enterprise Trade and Employment [2000] ELR 1, The High Court considered an appeal on a point of Law where 32 Crane Drivers were deemed to have been engaged in the “provision of services at a harbour “and thus encompassed by an exemption under the Act but remained deserving of compensatory rest breaks.

The Court finds as a fact that the employees are dock workers within the meaning of Article 17.2.1(c)(ii) of the Directive and involved in the provision of services at a harbour within the meaning of paragraph 3(b)(ii) of [the Schedule to] S.I. No. 21. Therefore, they cannot be covered by the exemptions provided by S.I. No. 20.

I have found that the Complainant in this case was not connected with the Operation of a vessel, therefore he is not covered by the exemptions in SI 20/1998.

I have also, following careful consideration of both parties outlines of the complainant’s position, taken in tandem with the lack of any visible reference to either a contractual mention or Ministerial exemption, concluded that the Complainant cannot be regarded as exempted in accordance with S.I 21/1998 and is entitled to be considered as an Ordinary worker with a commitment to on call for the purposes of the Act.

I was disappointed at the dearth of real time records of compensatory rest breaks which I could reasonably expect to have coincided with the pre-existing presence of an exemption as referred to by the Respondent. I note that the Respondent company is based in the UK and this area of aspects of the application of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 in this state may need some separate discussions between the parties prior to the realisation of Brexit.

I have not considered the submission raised by the Respondent on “Demurrage “post hearing as this was not raised by the parties at hearing, which may have allowed me to probe this concept more. Likewise, the Complainant submitted a statement post hearing from two other colleagues which reflected their dissatisfaction with aspects of their job. I cannot accept the opinions of Independent reviewers in this case as it is a case of A Worker V a Company.

CA -00010602-002 Weekly Rest Breaks

Section 13 of the Act reflects Art 5 of Directive 2003/88 and provides that an employee shall be entitled to an uninterrupted rest period of at least 24 hours in any seven-day period Weekly rest periods. I have considered both documents submitted by the parties governing the cognisable period of the claim, that is the six-month period prior to the submission of the complaint on 30 March 2017.

Section 13

1) In this section “daily rest period” means a rest period referred to section 11.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), an employee shall, in each period of 7 days, be granted a rest period of at least 24 consecutive hours; subject to subsections (4) and (6), the time at which that rest period commences shall be such that that period is immediately preceded by a daily rest period.

(3) An employer may, in lieu of granting to an employee in any period of 7 days the first-mentioned rest period in subsection (2), grant to him or her, in the next following period of 7 days, 2 rest periods each of which shall be a period of at least 24 consecutive hours and, subject to subsections (4) and (6)—

(a) if the rest periods so granted are consecutive, the time at which the first of those periods commences shall be such that that period is immediately preceded by a daily rest period, and

(b) if the rest periods so granted are not consecutive, the time at which each of those periods commences shall be such that each of them is immediately preceded by a daily rest period.

I have also reflected on Section 10.4 of the staff handbook on unusual hours /operating division which suggested that special payments for these hours may be incorporated in the terms of conditions. I compared both party’s submissions on November and December 2016 and January 2017. I have not included the latter-day information submitted by the Respondent at this point as it dealt with post claim details.

I found that the Complainant recorded his On-Call commitment whereas the Respondent did not. I also found a variance in the records on 8 days where the Complainant recorded working but this was not reflected on the Respondent records. I accept the submissions of the Respondent that some difference of opinion exists on a uniform agreed work record and that the WRC Inspectorate had assisted with this from April 2017.

Nonetheless, I have established three breaches of Sec 13(2) of the Act during November 2016. I could not determine any further breaches based on the evidence advanced by the complainant. I have found the complaint to be well founded.

CA-00010602-003

Section 15 of the Act reflects Art 6 of Directive 2003/88 and provides that an employee shall not be permitted by his employer to work more than an average of 48 hours during the course of a week .In most cases the averaging period is 4 months and does not include periods of annual leave , sick leave , maternity leave or carers leave .In IBM Ireland and Svoboda DWT 0818, 2008 the Labour Court stated that this imposes a form of “ strict liability “ on the Employer .

I did not receive any records from the Respondent on records retained in support of their position. Neither did I receive a particularised claim from the complainant under this Section of the Act in assist in my Inquiry. It is clear to me that a significant conflict exists between the parties on this issue that requires further local discussion. This may be abated by the provision of the new working time time records. However, I have insufficient information on which to base a decision. I find the complaint to be not well founded.

CA-00010602-004 Annual Leave

The Complainant confirmed on September 8, 2017 that this claim had been compromised with his Employer.

 CA-00010602-005 Start and finish times

 Section 17(1) of the 1997 Act provides that in the absence of mention of start and finish times in the contract of employment or other relevant agreement, the employee shall be entitled to notice of that starting and finishing time 24 hours before the day(s) on which he is required to work. If this is followed by variable additional hours on a day or days, the 24-hour notice of same is required as outlined in S. 17(2) of the Act. Section 17(4) provides an exemption to this based on unforeseen circumstances.

Provision of information in relation to working time.

17

17.— (1) If neither the contract of employment of the employee concerned nor any employment regulation order, registered employment agreement or collective agreement that has effect in relation to the employee specifies the normal or regular starting and finishing times of work of an employee, the employee’s employer shall notify the employee, subject to subsection (3), at least 24 hours before the first day or, as the case may be, the day, in each week that he or she proposes to require the employee to work, of the times at which the employee will normally be required to start and finish work on each day, or, as the case may be, the day or days concerned, of that week.

In the instant case, the Complainant furnished a copy of a contract dated 2001 which described the requirement for his work as “on an as and when needs basis “. This goes to the root of the difficulties expressed by both parties.

The Complainant stated that he was as likely as not to receive an email of instruction at 5 pm to “just go to boat “he stressed that he had neither a system or pattern of work and this was causing him concern and stress. He confirmed that the schedule reflected start times but not finish times. The Respondent stated that there was a clear system of work, where two ships were processed weekly. The arrival times of the ship are weather dependent and the Complainant is home based pending the ships arrival.

The Complainant submitted copies of emails of work instruction which related to his October 2016 work Schedule. These were submitted after the hearing and were disputed by the respondent who contended that the Complainant wasn’t rostered for shift work but for spot check work.

I have established that the Respondent has not outlined start and finish times in the contract of employment. I accept that the Complainant received notification of start times in the cognisable period. However, I have not succeeded from the records submitted in identifying a line of demarcation between on call and core hour working. Section 25(1) of the Act, provides that employers must keep records in relation to all employees and retain them for three years. These were not made available to me on start and finish times for the cognisable period.

I have noted that     a standard start and finish time is not a feature of the claimant’s work; However, I could not establish any evidence of Unforeseen circumstances in the records submitted by either party. On that basis, I have found the complaint to be well founded in terms of a breach of Section 17(1) during the cognisable period.

CA-00010602-006 Notification of Additional Hours

I have considered this claim as advanced by the Complainant and the Respondents reply. I have not been given sufficient information on which I can decide in the case. I note that Section 18 of the Act grants minimum payments to employees who are required to be available on a zero hours’ employment contract. However, the Complainant has submitted that he receives a flat annual salary of €47,886 per annum. I note from the latter-day submission of the Complainants hours that the hours of attendance are in the main of short duration. They are not standardised.

I could not establish a breach of the Act in relation to the notification of additional hours. I suggest that the parties engage on this topic at local level in the first instance

. CA-00010602-008 Excessive Night Hours

Section 16 of the Act reflects Article 8 of Directive 2003/88. For the purposes of the Act, night time covers Midnight to 7 am. A Night Worker is defined as a person who spends 50% or more of their annual hours working at night and one who works for three hours on a normal working day. An averaging period of 2 months applies.

Under Section 19 of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005, employers must carry out a risk assessment in respect of the Health and Safety of their employees working conditions. If an employee is determined to be at special risk, he will be covered by the protections in Section 16(2) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 on a “special category night worker”.

In the instant case, I have not received a breakdown of what shifts were classed as nights or days for the cognisable period.

The Complainant rested his claim on the three specific dates of 16/20 January 2017, and 7 February ,2017.

I find that the complainant has not demonstrated that he is a Night Worker in accordance with the Act and I have found that the Claim is not well founded.

Once again, I would recommend that the parties return to the table locally to seek to agree a mutually agreeable system of work about Night Work. The suggested risk assessment may be of some benefit in this regard.

CA-00010602-009 Industrial Relations

I have given some consideration to the submissions of the parties in this claim. I have reviewed the documents submitted by the parties. I have concluded that the claimant was not subjected to a Disciplinary sanction and on that basis, I cannot find merit in that aspect of the Dispute.

However, I have established that a deep fault line has developed in the claimants working relationship with his employer. It seems to me that this has emanated from both party’s interpretation of the basis on which the claimant is employed, the lines of demarcation between core hours of work and the supplementary on call and how a-typical working should be recognised for pay and rest period basis. These issues need to be discussed and developed into a mutually agreeable pathway for the way forward in the interests of respectful Industrial Relations. This should be enabled by the full co-operation of both parties with the new working time recording system in place since April 2017.

In recording this viewpoint, I am mindful of the Respondents submissions of previous Union / Management discussions which occurred 4 years previously and the prior existence of a time in lieu system in 2011.

CA-00010602-010 Equal Pay Claim

I have considered the claim advanced by the complainant on Equal Pay and the response by the Respondent. He did not specify any grounds on which his complaint was based. Based on the information submitted for my investigation. His reference to a work colleague of the same gender receiving a different payment is deserving of an activation of the Company grievance procedure.

The complainant produced no evidence to substantiate his claim that he received less pay than someone else performing like work on any of the grounds of Discrimination. I did not receive any copies of wage slips, job descriptions or any of the detail provided for in Section 7 of the Act. I therefore find that the complainant is unable to establish a prime facie case of discrimination in relation to his claim for equal pay.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaints and Dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 covers my jurisdiction in relation to the first six of these complaints.

It is of note that the Respondent had not furnished extensive working time records which covered the cognisable period up to March 30, 2017.It is of further note that the complainant did not furnish extensive of his claim. I am encouraged that both parties are now intent on utilising the new working time records sheet from April 2017.

CA-00010602-002 I have found the complaint to be well founded. I have established that the Respondent has not demonstrated compliance with the Act during the cognisable period. I order the amount of compensation to be paid as €750.00. I order the Respondent to comply with the Act.

CA-00010602-003 I have found that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00010602-004 This claim has been compromised between the parties.

CA-00010602-005 I have found that the complaint is well founded and I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €750.00 in compensation. I order the Respondent to comply with the Act.

CA-00010602-006 I have found that the complaint is not well founded

CA-00010602-008 I have found that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00010602-009 Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I have not found merit in relation to the complaint regarding the Disciplinary sanction applied. I have made a rider comment in terms of advising an improvement in Industrial Relations in my findings.

CA-00010602-010 Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the Act.

I have found that the complainant has not established a prime facie case of discrimination about equal pay .

Core Work/ On Call, Weekly Rest periods, Start and Finish Times, Annual leave, Equal Pay . Disciplinary sanction .