ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference:
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Storeman | A Council |
Representatives | Senior Staff Officer – Employer Relations |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00021639-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate a matter raised. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
Having confirmed that the Complainant herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts and Having conducted the Investigation as described in Section 13, I, as the so appointed Adjudication Officer, am bound to make a recommendation which will set forth my opinion on the merits of the within dispute.
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully listened to the evidence adduced herein. The worker herein has worked with this local Council since 1997. For the duration of the employment he has been in a class of employee working in the storeroom facilities responsible for the maintenance and provision of goods and supplies for the effective operation of all works associated with the Council. This has been described to me as an Operational function and must be distinguished from clerical and administrative functions. Since 2005, the worker herein has been acting up to the grade and position known as storekeeper Grade I. In 2015 the worker herein applied for this position when it was advertised. The worker was successful at interview and was offered this position on a full time and permanent basis. The evidence is that at least another four employees in the Council were also employed to the grade of Storekeeper Grade I at this time. I accept that there was an error on the face of the Contract of Employment provided to the Worker. This was a typographical error. In the new Contract of Employment, it was incorrectly stated that the worker ‘s working week would be a 37-hour week. I accept that this position is intended to be a salaried position requiring some 39 hours per week. Unfortunately, the five Contracts sent to the five new Storekeeper Grade I employees all contained the same error – indicating a 37-hour week and not the 39 hours intended. When the issue was raised (by this worker as it happens) management moved swiftly to point out the error, and all of the new appointees (with the exception of this worker) accepted the fact of the error in the Contract of Employment. I have seen the letter purporting to rectify the error signed on the 27th day of May 2015 – within six weeks of the Contract issuing. Despite the fact that the worker herein had spent upwards of ten years acting up in this position of Storekeeper Grade I and knowing that he had always been expected to put in a 39 hour week he was now anxious to maintain that the 37 hours specified in his Contract of Employment was a true and accurate account of the hours he is expected to work. The Employer has consistently refused to recognise the legitimacy of this claim. To be fair to the worker herein I accept that he has never been provided with a comprehensive document or piece of paperwork which attempts to list the rates of pay and grades associated with the workplace and has instead had to rely on a persistent statement that this is the recognised custom and practise in the workplace i.e. the 39 hour week is the normal working week. I am mindful of the fact that in making his assertion, the worker had no comparator upon whom he can rely for making his case. I cannot favour his argument when there is no arguable case. On balance I am therefore satisfied that the 39-hour week is applicable to the worker’s contract and to this workers place of work. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the worker herein recognises that he is bound to work a 39-hour week in his position as Storekeeper Grade1. |
Dated: 28 May 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
|