ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013802
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Operative | A Facilities Company |
Complaint:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00018164-002 | 20/Mar/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/May/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the dispute 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 dispute.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant is employed on a wage of €10.25 per hour. She claims entitlement to the rate applicable to contract cleaners under the Contract Cleaning Industry Employment Regulation Order, (ERO) which is €10.40 per hour. She says her work has a significant component of cleaning and therefore she is entitled to the higher rate. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent company was initially predominantly a contract cleaning company but this now only represents about 20% of its activities. The complainant is not engaged in contract cleaning work as it is defined in the ERO. It is defined there as; ‘the cleaning of premises by companies engaged in whole or in part on the provision of cleaning and janitorial services in establishments such as hospitals, offices, factories, shops, stores, apartment buildings, hotels, airports. The complainant’s work does involve cleaning apparatus for use in offices, water coolers, but this does not come within the embrace of the ERO. In addition, application of the ERO would result in a reduction in the complainant’s earnings as a result of its less favourable overtime arrangements. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I find that the complainant’s work is not the same as that covered by the ERO and does not fall within the generally understood meaning of contract cleaning, as defined above in the extract from the ERO. Accordingly, her claim fails. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the reasons set out above I do not uphold CA-00018164-002 and it is dismissed. |
Dated: 27th July 2018.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Application of ERO. |