FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 45(A) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT,1946 PARTIES : BIDVEST NOONAN (ROI) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LTD) - AND - MR MARTIN TYNDALL (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00026634, CA-00033908-001 “I find the case advanced by the respondent to be more compelling and persuasive. Accordingly, I have concluded that the complaint is not well founded.” The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Decision to the Labour Court on 21st October 2020 in accordance with Section 45(B) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A Labour Court hearing took place on 19th November 2020.
The Union submitted that the Complainant was entitled to be paid a minimum payment of four hours pay when he worked two hours between 8.00am and 10.00am on 26 occasions between July 2019 and January 2020 at a bank premises in Galway. By Decision dated 14th October 2020, the Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was not well founded. That Decision was appealed to the Court by the Complainant on 21st October 2020. Position of the Parties Mr Paul Hardy, SIPTU, on behalf of the Complainant submitted that section 2(20) of the ERO was not agreed to produce a pay differential between hours worked as part of a roster and hours worked on anad hocbasis, but to provide for a minimum length of shift of four hours in the industry and to compensate a worker for the inconvenience of any shorter period of work. Mr Hugh Hegarty, Management Support Services, on behalf of the Respondent submitted that section 2(20) of the ERO only applies where the Complainant is called in on short notice to work, not where he has been rostered to work. He said that the Complainant was part of a roster pattern required for the bank premises to cover two hours in the morning and from 4.00pm to 9.00pm in the evening and rostered to work at weekends. He said that of the 26 occasions cited, he worked this shift pattern on all except for four occasions. Findings of the Court It is common case that the Complainant is a Security Officer and the ERO applies to his employment conditions. The only question before the Court is whether or not he has an entitlement, by virtue of section 2(20) of the ERO, to be paid four hours on those occasions when he was rostered to work two hours between 8.00am and 10.00am, between July 2019 and January 2020. Having considered the submissions made by both parties the Court is of the view that on a plain reading of the section in question, it clearly refers to “When a security workeris called in”. This in the Court’s view indicates a situation where a security workeris called inrather than being rostered to work a shift pattern. The Court’s understanding of being called in refers to anad hocsituation and not one where he has a known shift pattern in advance. The Court is strengthened in this view by its understanding that rostered hours as distinct fromad hochours are encompassed by section 4 of the ERO:-
Determination Based on its findings above, the Court concurs with the Adjudication Officer’s Decision and finds that the Respondent was not in contravention of the Employment Regulation Order (ERO) for the Security Industry (Joint Labour Committee) 2017, S.I. No. 231 of 2017. Therefore, the Complainant’s appeal fails.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Noel Jordan, Court Secretary. |
