ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010500
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Clerical Worker | A Transport Company |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00013268-001 | 23/08/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00013268-002 | 23/08/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/03/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant says that he is a fixed term employee but is not paid an allowance for working a ‘split shift’ which other employees of the respondent are paid. The allowance is in the region of €130 to €160 per week. He is being treated less favourably than a comparable permanent employee. The same facts ground his complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent raises two preliminary points. First, the complainant is on a contract of indefinite duration and is not a ‘fixed term’ employee. Secondly, no claim arises under the Payment of Wages Act as there has been no deduction from his wages such that would bring it within the ambit of that Act. In addition, the company has no such allowance as is being claimed by the complainant paid to any of its employees. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Both these complaints are misconceived. The complainant told the hearing that the source of the information for the complaint was an employee of a related, but entirely separate company and arose in a casual conversation. He could offer no evidence to support the claim made by that third party. Even then it would have to surmount the overwhelming odds presented by the preliminary objections raised by the respondent. The purpose of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 will be obvious from its title. It is to ensure that employees on such contracts are not treated less favourably than those on contracts of indefinite duration. The complainant lacks any standing to make such a complaint, as he is not a ‘fixed-term’ worker, and leaving aside the fact that the allowance he is claiming does not exist in the respondent company. Similarly, there has been no breach of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act which refers to ‘a deduction being made by an employer from the wages of an employee’. This clearly has no relevance to the facts of the current case. Accordingly, both complaints fail. |
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 complaints CA-00013268-001 and 002 are not upheld. |
Dated: 21st June 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Jurisdiction. |