ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00017807
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Local Authority Worker | A Local Authority |
Complaint(s):
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-00022990-001 | 02/11/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/02/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following 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:
The complainant was asked in 2012 to carry out additional responsibilities and was in receipt of overtime payments as compensation. This arrangement was changed unilaterally by the respondent. The complaint is seeking compensation for loss of overtime and breach of an agreement regarding exercising additional responsibility. He is also seeking to be compensated for temporary relocation |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant has three claims. The first relates to a loss of overtime at a re-cycle station which he had enjoyed since 2013. The second claim relates to the discontinuation of acting-up payments he had been in receipt of since 2015 although he is still expected to carry out the responsibilities. The third claim is for compensation arising from being required to move base. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Preliminary Issue The respondent contends that the issues raised in this claim have been the subject of an earlier adjudication hearing and that to rehear these would breach the doctrine of res judicata. Substantive Issues The complainant has received no loss in his gross pay in the years in question and, as the substantive wage did not change, this means that he suffered no overall loss of overtime. In relation to acting, he continued to be given an acting allowance when covering for the Inspector. In relation to temporary relocation, the Council has the right to relocate any of its employees and the complainant had use of a Council van. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Preliminary issues Having heard the details of the claims I am satisfied that these claims were not comprehended by the previous rights commissioner recommendation. Loss of overtime claim In relation to the claim for loss of overtime, it is clear from the figures presented at the hearing that there was no overall loss in overtime for the complainant and therefore I do not accept that this claim is well founded. Acting-up claim The complainant alleges that the respondent is in breach of the agreement made in June 2014 regarding compensation for acting up which was by way of an overtime payment. The claim relies on the agreement signed by a Senior Engineer with the Respondent which stated; It is agreed that (the complainant), while continuing to be employed as Assistant Waterworks Inspector will take on the duties of a Water Inspector and take responsibility for the operation and maintenance of both Waste Water Treatment plants. Due to the loading that occurs at weekends there is a need for attendance at weekends. Based on the experience of the previous occupier of the post and the fact that there has been no change to the operation of the system it is agreed that (the complainant) will attend for work for four hours on a Saturday and four hours on a Sunday at the appropriate overtime rates. The overtime paid was considerably in excess of the standard acting-up allowance which would have applied had the complainant been formally made Acting-up. Therefore, while it may have been intended to comprehend the additional responsibility, it was also clearly related to additional work requiring to be carried out outside normal working hours. As such it was open to the employer to decide that it no longer required that work to be done in that way or at least to reduce it. The letter from the Senior Executive Engineer dated 12th January 2015 is clear in that regard i.e. in reducing the amount of work requiring to be done at the weekends, and in my view it was open to the respondent to do that. However, that letter makes no mention of the complainant no longer being required to carry out the additional responsibilities which had been detailed in the agreement of 3rd June 2014. Therefore, he was entitled to receive an allowance. I conclude therefore, that the normal allowance payable for Acting-up as Water Inspector should be paid for as long as the complainant is required to have the responsibilities of Inspector. This allowance should have no connection to any overtime requirement relating to additional work being required at weekends which should be at the discretion of the respondent. The allowance should be payable from 12th January 2015, the date when the ad hoc method of payment through the use of overtime was altered. If there is an ongoing requirement for a post at this level then the respondent should take steps to create such a post and fill it in accordance with the respondent’s normal procedures. Temporary relocation It is clear from a previous Labour Court decision (Roscommon County Council and SIPTU), (LCR 21541), that the Council has the right to relocate staff in accordance with its priorities. However, it is also clear that the exercise of such a prerogative should be carried out in accordance with good management practice to minimise the impact on staff engagement with and commitment to the organisation, primarily through ensuring that the reasons for relocation are clear and also to consider the consequences for the individual. It is essential for good employee relations that the rationale underpinning any such decision be fully explained to an affected member of staff and that his/her perspective on the change be fully heard, if necessary through the grievance procedure. In the current case it is clear that the impact of the temporary relocation on the complainant was minimal, in particular as he had the use of the respondent’s vehicle and therefore I do not believe compensation is warranted. |
Recommendation:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the normal allowance payable for Acting-up as Water Inspector should be paid to the complainant for as long as he is required to exercise the responsibilities of Inspector. This allowance should have no connection to any overtime requirement relating to additional work being required at weekends which should be at the discretion of the respondent. The allowance should be payable from 12th January 2015, (the date when the ad hoc method of payment through the use of overtime was altered) for the duration of the acting up period. If there is an ongoing requirement for a post at this level then the respondent should take steps to create such a post and fill it in accordance with the respondent’s normal procedures. |
Dated: 08/04/19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Key Words:
Loss of overtime, work relocation, Acting up allowance |