Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Airport Ground Operative

Airline Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00028552-001

20/05/2019

The Complainant seeks the payment of €817 plus a shift premium under the Payment of Wages Act.

The Complainant says a sum of money was unlawfully deducted from her for several days of work where she was rostered to work but when she was unable to present to work or gain access to work – through no fault of her own. The Complainant says she did not have the required security pass to gain access to her place of   work.

The Respondent is of the view that the Complainant’s failure to have her security pass was entirely her own fault and that she herself was solely to blame for her inability to present for her rostered shifts and cannot be paid for work which was never done.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced herein. The Complainant had worked with the Respondent Airline since 1988. In her role the Complainant worked “Airside” and was therefore subject to the intense security system that operates in this Airport as in every Airport across the world. The Complainant was familiar with the process of renewing her Airside Pass which was issued by a third party – the Airport controller. The Complainant explained that it had been a simple enough process where each candidate would have an updated photo taken and issued with a new pass thereafter.

Despite the apparent simplicity of the process, I accept that the Airport controller will not let anyone who has lost and or who does not have an appropriate pass through to the Airside of the Airport. There can be no exceptions to this rule. Failure to present an Airside Pass is tantamount to failing to turn up for work.

In September 2018 a new layer of requirements was imposed on all Airport staff having possession of such a pass. Under EU Law a Garda vetting process became a requirement for renewing as well as obtaining a pass.

I fully accept that this information once disseminated throughout the staff should have alerted staff that renewals with the Airport Controller would take longer than expected. Garda vetting processes can take some time and this is a fact well known and in the public domain. The Employer sent communications to all of it’s employees on the in-house intranet as well as hanging the communications on the employee Notice Boards internally. The onus was very firmly placed on each Employee to ensure he or she communicated with the Airport controller for the purpose of renewing their passes and were advised to leave plenty of time to achieve this.

Importantly it is noted that that the Employer specifically warned that if the Airside Pass expires and no renewal has been obtained then an employee –

“Will be required to take unpaid leave for the period until your AIC is renewed”

The Complainant gave evidence that she expected the Employer to be more pro-active in reminding her that the time for renewal was approaching. She believed the process was overly confusing and demanding. The Complainant’s Airside pass was due to expire on the 4th of November and the Complainant applied for her Garda Vetting process on the 29th of October which it seems was an insufficient lead in period for obtaining Garda vetting.

The Complainant advised her Employer on the 2nd of November that she had not obtained her pass and would therefore unable to work from the 4th of November 2018. As it happens the Complainant was going on Annual Leave from the 9th of November and she was therefore was absent form work for five days before taking annual leave.

The Employer took the view that the Employee knew or ought to have known that the onus was on her to renew her pass and that her absence in the circumstances would be regarded as unpaid leave per the warnings of which she knew or ought to have known. She would not be getting paid for wprk which she had been unable to perform.

I note that the Vetting process was completed on the 12th of November some 2 weeks after the process commenced. Her pass was ready on her return to the workplace after her Annual Leave. The Complainant has not satisfactorily explained why she did not start the vetting process before the end of October. There was never any chance of a pass being ready within four days which was the length of time the Complainant had allowed. I cannot accept that the Employer’s failure to send her a 60-day email notice was the deciding factor in not making any attempt to get her affairs in order. I am also minded to think that the Complainant’s decision not to present to the workplace on the 4th of November 2018 was a little presumptuous. The Complainant was not to know if her Employer might have been able to provide her with a short term pass for the few days involved. It looked orchestrated.

On balance I find that the Complainant took no responsibility for her own omissions and failures. She refused to accept that there was an onus on her to obtain the pass. She fully expected that she should have been brought through the process by a third party and could not see that that there was any obligation on her to be more pro-active in ensuring she got her pass.

I am satisfied that Wages only fall to be paid in connection with the employment and in the performance of the Contract of Employment.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00028552-001

The Complaint herein is not well-founded and the Complaint Fails.