Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Site Operative

Flooring Manufacturer / Supplier

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.

CA-00026330-001

17/02/2019

The complainant has been employed by the respondent since February 2016 and works as a Site Operative.  The complaint is in regard to the alleged non-payment of the rate of pay set out in the Sectoral Employment Order (SEO) for the Construction Sector which came into force with effect from 19 October 2017.

The complainant is employed in a job that is covered by the Sectoral Employment Order.

The Order came into effect on 19 October 2017.

The complainant is paid less than the amount specified in the Order since that date.

All employees of the respondent who fall under the umbrella of the SEO were offered terms and conditions in line with the SEO in April 2018.

The terms of the offer were rejected by the complainant and other employees.

These employees insisted on remaining on their existing terms and conditions.

The respondent produces and fits precast concrete products for the construction industry.  In 2017 the Sectoral Employment Order (Construction Sector) 2017, S.I. No. 455/2017, came into effect with an implementation date of 19 October 2017.  Amongst its provisions it set down minimum rates of pay for workers employed in the sector.

The respondent’s workforce consists of about 35 employees some of whom work in the office, some in the factory and the remainder on site.  The respondent’s Finance Director stated that when he joined the company in 2018 there had been no previous financial controller and that one of the first issues that he had to address was the implementation of the SEO.  In April 2018 a set of proposals in this regard was sent to each employee whom the respondent deemed to be covered by the SEO.  Whilst advising of the new hourly rates the proposal also dealt with a number of other items including subsistence rates, clocking-in procedures, weekend rates, pension scheme contributions and a clause in relation to the lower rate of pay applicable if required to work in the respondent’s factory.  This proposal was rejected by the employees concerned as they believed that the combined effect of the proposals would be to reduce their income.  The Director in evidence stated that the respondent had provided calculations to show that this was not the case but that the employees had insisted on remaining on their existing terms and conditions.  The management took a decision not to implement the new hourly rates until all issues had been resolved.

The respondent then began to come under pressure from prospective clients who required an undertaking from the respondent that they were employing their workers in conformity with the SEO.  A slightly amended set of proposals, dated 11 January 2019, was then put to the employees concerned and was eventually accepted by them.  At this time, however, the complaint had travelled to his homeland for Christmas and had not returned at the end of the holiday.  The complainant has not worked for the respondent since that date but was in attendance at the hearing.

I note that the Director recognised the need to address the implementation of the SEO upon his appointment in 2018.  In doing so management attempted to address a number of issues as well as that of the rate of pay.  These were presented to the employees concerned as a package but were not agreed by them.  According to the evidence of the Director it was accepted that the respondent had an obligation to pay the rates contained in the SEO but a decision was made that this would not be done until agreement was reached on all matters.  This agreement was reached in February 2019 but as noted the complainant was not working for the respondent at that time.

The requirement to pay the rate contained in the SEO dates back to 19 October 2017 regardless of whether or not there were other issues that the respondent wished to address.  The complainant had been in receipt of a rate of pay of €13.30 per hour.  The rate of pay applicable to the complainant under the terms of the SEO is €17.04 (Category 1 worker).  I find that this rate of pay should have applied from 19 October 2017 until the end of December 2018 for all work performed for the respondent.

Complaint No. CA-00026330-001:

I find this complaint to be well founded.  I find that the respondent had a liability to pay to the complainant the rate of pay specified in the SEO for a Category 1 worker (€17.04 per hour) for all work performed for the respondent until the end of December 2018. Details of hours worked were supplied by the respondent and based on these I require the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €13,180.00.