Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Crew Leader

An Employer

Representatives

N/A

self

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00030540-001

28/08/2019

The Worker is employed as a Crew Leader since 1st January 1998. He has claimed that he is not in receipt of overtime opportunities and is deprived of on-call opportunities. He is also claiming that his status is affected by not rostering him on the Crew Bus. The Employer rejected these claims. At the first hearing in November 2019 it was agreed that the parties should engage further with a view to resolving this dispute locally. This engagement did not achieve a resolution to this dispute.

1) Overtime Loss

The Worker went out sick during 2017 and into 2018. When he returned to work, he was moved from his Crew bus leading a team of four employees to a lesser vehicle, a Cutting truck as Crew Leader with responsibility for one person only.   His previous position attracted overtime of 4 hours at 1.5 and 4 hours at double time on Saturdays and 8 hours at double time on Sundays fortnightly valued at €200. His new role had no guarantee of overtime. He had been given first option on the overtime. He declined to work some overtime because he was not been paid as before, which was unfair.

2) On-Call Opportunities

He was also denied on-call opportunities which had carried a pensionable additional income. He raised a grievance through his union, but it did not achieve a resolution to his grievances.

3) Status

He has also claimed that his status has been reduced by placing him on the lesser vehicle, the Cutting Van, and he now supervises one person instead of four under the Crew Bus. There is a very clear understanding of the hierarchical status of these vehicles. He is seeking that he is restored to the Crew Bus. Since May 2020 he has now been restored to the Crew Bus. He has claimed that as a result of his treatment by the Employer his income and his pension entitlements are adversely affected.

1) Overtime

Overtime is not guaranteed. It is based on the needs of the business and decided every Friday. Saturday overtime is paid at 1.25 for the first 4 hours and double time for the remainder. Sunday overtime is paid at double time. The Worker has been offered overtime on a continuous basis, but he has declined to work it. In the year 6th November 2018 to 8th November 2019 he was not available or declined overtime working on 27 times. This claim is rejected.

1) Overtime

I note that the Employer showed that in the year 8th November 2018 to 6th November 2019 the Worker declined to work over time on 15 occasions excluding times when he was offered overtime but was not available due to holidays/time off.

I note that the Worker claimed that he had guaranteed overtime and this was rejected by the Employer. I find no basis to support this allegation.

So, I find that overtime is not guaranteed. It is decided on a weekly basis on the needs of the business.

I note that the Worker stated that he declined overtime because he was offered overtime at a lesser rate than previously worked, 8 hours at double time on Saturdays and 8 hours at double time on Sundays. I find that the rate for overtime is 1.25 for the first 4 hours on Saturday and double time for the remainder and double time on Sundays. I am satisfied that the same rate of overtime applies to the working and is not based on the vehicle being driven.

I find that the Worker has declined working overtime and so has failed to establish a basis for this claim and so it is rejected.

2) On-Call opportunities

I note that it is accepted practice in this Depot that on-call opportunities are given to those employees who make themselves available for overtime working.

I find that it is established from the records supplied that the Worker declined working overtime on at least 15 occasions.

I note that the Worker never availed of the opportunity to work the overtime under protest if he believed that he had a genuine grievance.

I find that the Employer has applied the practice in that Deport and so this claim is rejected.

3) Status

I note that the Worker is paid the same rate of pay irrespective of the vehicle he is allocated to.

I find no contractual basis for this alleged seniority.

I find that it is a hierarchical structure which the workers have in their minds. I find that the practice and the contract does not support this alleged hierarchical structure.

Therefore, I find no basis for this claim

I have carefully considered the written and oral submissions made by both parties to this dispute.

For the above stated reasons as set out in the Findings and Conclusions I reject these claims.

Dispute regarding overtime, on-call opportunities and perceived status