ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00017851
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Signalman | Transport & defence |
Representatives | John Brosnan /Paul Buckley |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00022945-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
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 dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background
The dispute concerns the non-payment of the 7.5% allowance to the claimant from 2008 to 20012 inclusive which was paid to other Trade Union representatives attending meetings with the respondent on Industrial Relations matters.
It was submitted that normal day's earnings of 7.5% and an underpayment of 7.5% on overtime payments should have been paid to the claimant which would have been due to him traveling to and from Cork.
The allowance equates to €63.00 per week equalling €12.60 per day.
The claimant is seeking payment from 2008 to 2012 (inclusive) to the amount of €4158, in addition,
the claimant is also seeking losses he suffered on his overtime of €1714 for the same period (2008/2012) making a total of €5872 that is being claimed.
The respondent for their part stated that the above payment to the claimant was agreed by the District Manager as a gesture of goodwill in recognition of his time commitments as a Trade Union representative.
There is no obligation to pay the claimant this allowance while on Union business. The respondent has twice examined the claimant's complaint vis the agreed grievance process.
Throughout these engagements, four managers have received the complaint and concluded that he (claimant) did not have a valid complaint about retrospective payment of the allowance.
The respondent submitted that in the event of the concession of the claimant case that this would lead a knock-on effect where other employees would be requesting the same consideration.
The respondent submitted the Labour Court recommendation 26105 no cost increasing claims during the term of the agreement.
Findings
I find that both parties made written and verbal submissions at the hearing.
I find that the complaint refers to a period back to 2008 /2012 inclusive.
I find that having considered all the arguments I have to consider the labour Court recommendation which states;
“that no future costly increasing claims will be made by the Trade Union during the lifetime of this agreement and that the company will not, outside of the engagements set out in this recommendation, propose any, measures that will change employees’ terms and conditions of employment except through the medium of productivity discussions.
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I find that having all aspects into consideration and especially the Labour Court recommendation 26195, I cannot recommend concession of the claim and it falls.
Dated: June 14th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell
Key Words:
|