LCR22282

1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision no. ADJ-00025099 CA-00031913-001

BACKGROUND:

2.The issue involves a claim by a worker. The matter was referred to a Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 29 June 2020 the Adjudication Officer issued their Recommendation as follows:

‘I recommend that the employer pay the worker an amount equal to 75% of the average overtime earnings awarded to his colleagues in the Public Real Department out of the pot of 13,000 hours for the period 11 March to 31 December 2013 which was the lifespan of the 13,000 hours.
I recommend that for the period 1 January up to the point in 2015 when he was placed on the on-call roster for overtime , the employer should pay the worker 60%of the average amount of overtime hours paid to his fellow workers, per month, in the Public Realm department.
The overtime hours to which I refer for March – December 2013 and for the period January 2014 –to the date on which he was placed on the roster in 2015 are to be paid at the normal overtime rates for normal overtime hours and are not to comprehend Emergency Call-out rates.’

On the 29 July 2020 the Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20 October 2020.

DECISION:

This case is an appeal by the Employer of the Decision of an Adjudication Officer. The issue in dispute between the parties is the Worker’s claim that the Employer failed to share out overtime on an equal basis in line with the LRC Public Realm Agreement.

The Employer raised a preliminary issue in respect of the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the claim as it was the Employer’s submission that the issue in dispute was a collective issue. In support of their submission the Employer drew the Court’s attention to the specific details of the Complaint set out by the Worker in his Workplace Relation Complaint Form.

In particular the Court’s attention was drawn to the following statement “For over 30 months staff from operations, graveyards, golf courses and graffiti removal were denied over-time for the on-call system thereby financially discriminating against Mr Kilety and other members”.It is the Employer’s submission that the issue in dispute clearly impacts on more than Mr Kielty.

It is the Union’s submission that there claim is only in respect of Mr Kielty. However, the Union did acknowledge that the way the Employer had chosen to apply the collective agreement had an impact on other staff and not just Mr Kielty.

The Court considered the submissions of the parties and Section 13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 which states:

• “Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay, of hours or times of work, or annual holidays of a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part Vi of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner”.

The Court overturns the Adjudication Officer’s finding and upholds the appeal.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
H.M.	______________________
29 October 2020	Deputy Chairman