FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : BIDVEST NOONAN (ROI) LTD DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.ADJ-00014770 CA-00018940-002 This is an appeal by Ms. Ivanova, ‘the Complainant’ of an Adjudication Officer’s,(AO) Decision under s. 45A of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 , ‘the Act’. The Complainant began working for another company as a cleaner in 2004. In 2010 her employment transferred in a transfer of undertakings to Bidvest Noonan, ‘the Respondent’. Employment Regulation Order, ‘ERO’, increases in 2015 and 2016 were not applied to her pay. The Respondent justified this on the grounds that the Complainant was in receipt of a pay rate in excess of the ERO rates at the time. The Complainant lodged a complaint under the Act. The Complaint was not upheld by the AO . The Complainant appealed this Decision. The applicable law Industrial Relations Act 1946 Decision of adjudication officer undersection 41of Workplace Relations Act 2015 45A. A decision of an adjudication officer undersection 41of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of an employment regulation order in relation to a worker shall do one or more of the following, namely — (a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded, (b) require the employer to comply with the employment regulation order, or (c) require the employer to pay to the worker compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years ’ remuneration in respect of the worker ’ s employment calculated in accordance with regulations undersection 17of theUnfair Dismissals Act 1977. Decision of Labour Court on appeal from decision referred to in section 45A 45B. A decision of the Labour Court undersection 44of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, on appeal from a decision of an adjudication officer referred to in section 45A, shall affirm, vary or set aside the decision of the adjudication officer. Deliberation. It is accepted by all parties in the instant case that, at the material times, the Complainant was paid in excess of the pay rates provided for in the ERO. It is, therefore, self evident that the Respondent was not in breach of the ERO with regard to the Complainant’s pay and that the provisions of s.45A, set out above, are not applicable. The Complainant’s appeal, therefore, cannot be upheld. Determination. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed.
NOTE |
