ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00019837

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	An Employee	A Pharmacy

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946	CA-00026266-001	13/02/2019

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/04/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act and Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 following 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).

Background:

The issues in contention concern the rate of pay of the Employee and whether or not he falls within the remit of the Security Industry Employment Regulation Order - Si 231 of 2017.

1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was employed as a Security Officer by the Respondent and as such falls within the remit of S.I. No.231/2017 Employment Regulation Order (Security Industry Joint Labour Committee) 2017. (Called the ERO below for Convenience). His wages should be so determined.

2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent is a retail business and is not a Security Company as defined in the ERO Establishment Order of 1988 (SI No.377 of 1998) as amended by the Security Industry Joint Labour Committee Establishment (Amendment Order) 2014 (SI No 30 of 2014).

As such the provisions of the ERO cited (231 of 2017) do not apply to him.

Notwithstanding the above the Complainant’s Job Tile is Security Person/Driver. He has a very limited Security Role. -certainly considerably less than 20% of his time. In fact, it can on occasions go a slow as less than 6% of his weekly time. His primary function is a Driver and making deliveries /collections.

Furthermore, any complaint he has with his Wages can easily be examined in the Company Grievance Procedures which avenue he does not seems to have pursued prior to coming to the WRC.

3: Findings and Conclusions:

I examined ERO Establishment Order of 1988 (SI No.377 of 1998) as amended by the Security Industry Joint Labour Committee Establishment (Amendment Order) 2014 (SI No 30 of 2014).

SI No 377/1998 refers in the Schedule to

“Security operatives, namely persons employed to provide a security service as described hereunder for contract clients of their employer and performing one or more of the functions set out hereunder.”

SI No 30 of 2014 refers to in Section 2 “Meaning of a Security Firm”

“Security firm” means an employer who employs one or more security operatives”

Security Operative means a person employer by a Security Firm to

“Provide a security service for contract clients of that firm”

As none of these conditions apply in this case, the Respondent is a Retail /Commercial Pharmacy, I must find that the claim is Not Well Founded and has to be dismissed.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 require that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Summary decision / Please refer to Section Three above for reasoning.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946	CA-00026266-001	Claim is dismissed as Not Well Founded as the ERO does not apply in this case.

Dated: 30th May 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Key Words: