ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021924
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Paramedic | A Health Care Service Provider |
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-00028729-001 | 29/05/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/10/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Adjudication Officer Jurisdiction:
Specifically, regarding Industrial Relations Act 1969, section 13(2) “body of workers”
The issue at the centre of this claim – the payment of travel expenses to un-rostered staff when they are travelling in their assigned hub in accordance with paragraph 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 of the Union Management Agreement dated November 2013 – is of a collective nature and as such is not within the jurisdiction of an Adjudication Officer as per Section 13 (2) of the Act.
Background:
Following the Labour Court decisions of LCR 20323 and LCR 20558, a union management agreement established guidelines to regularise the position of un-rostered staff. Paragraph 7.1.2 of that agreement states as follows: Un-rostered Staff will be assigned to a Station, which will become their “HUB” station. Staff will be required to work within 45 km driving distance by the shortest route (from their HUB station or home – whichever is shorter.) Some geographical variation may occur. Travel and or subsistence payment do not apply within the HUB. Paragraph 7.1.3 states: This does not prevent un-rostered Staff being re-assigned to another station (HUB) to meet the service needs. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complaint is that although he is assigned to a particular Hub station, he has been required to work from a different station, which is 50 km from his home. He did not wish to be assigned to this different station and objected once it was asked of him. He contends that he should be paid travel and subsistence from his home to this different station, as opposed to not receiving expenses for the 45km that he must travel through his assigned hub and only being paid for the 5 km between where his hub geographic area ends to the different station. This is not in accordance with the Respondent guidelines. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
This is not an individual complaint insofar as it will effect all 300 un-rostered staff that are in the same position as the Complainant. As such the WRC has no jurisdiction to deal with this complaint as it effects a body of workers. The guidelines are clear. Un-rostered staff are assigned a hub station, which is close to their home, travel within this hub area will not attract travel and subsistence expenses payment. Un-rostered staff may be re-assigned to another station (HUB) which is what happened here. It would be anomalous if un-rostered workers who travelled 44 km from their home within their assigned hub did not receive any expenses but once someone travels 46 km from their home through their hub and into a different hub that they would receive travel and subsistence for the entire of the 46km. This would undermine the agreement and guidelines that have been agreed between the unions and management. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. Section 13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 precludes an adjudication on a claim effecting a body of workers. This claim will effect a body of workers because the complaint seeks to amend the terms of the 2013 union management agreement to make specific provision for the circumstances where a worker, assigned to a particular hub, is required to work out of another hub, that his travel expenses will take account of his journey from home as opposed to the point that he leaves his assigned hub. This is not part of the agreement and I am satisfied that this complaint will impact not just the Complainant but also on all the 300 un-rostered staff, that are party to the guidelines as they stand currently. I therefore find that I have no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. |
Dated: 02-12-2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Key Words:
Body of Workers – Industrial Relations |