ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032152
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Marisa McCarthy | Cpl Limerick |
Representatives | Self represented | Aislin Reid Ibec |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 | CA-00042705-001 | 25/02/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/05/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant contends she was discriminated against in relation to the distribution of bonuses. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant commenced her employment as a full-time worker. She transferred to part time work in or around September 2020. In December 2020, she was advised that she would receive a bonus of €200 at the end of January 2021 and a further bonus of €300 at the end of February 2021. When she received €100 at the end of January 2021, she considered that as a part time worker she had been discriminated against. She also had been advised in December 2020 that she would receive €200. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Complainant is an agency worker located at the client site. The client operates a bonus scheme which is subject to the hours worked and therefore the bonus is pro-rated compared to full time colleagues. The eligibility for receipt of the bonus was based on attendance and being in the employment up to and at the time of payment. The Respondent, as an Agency does not set the bonus criteria within the Client company, and therefore has no control over the matter. It is a common approach that bonuses are on a pro rata basis. Further, company bonuses are discretionary and not a matter of entitlement. It is argued that the Respondent has not breached the Act. The relevant statutory provisions are to be found in sections 9(1), 10(1), 10(2) and 12 of the Act. Section 10 defines what is meant by the pro-rata principle. There are 8 other part-time staff at the site, none of whom had an issue with receiving the bonus on a part-time basis. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The applicable law Section 10 of the Protection of Employees (Part-time work) Act 2001 provides: 10-(1) The extent to which any condition of employment referred to in sub-section (2) is provided to a part-time employee for the purposes of complying with section 9(1) shall be related to the proportion which the normal hours of work of that employee bears to the normal hours of work of the comparable full-time employee concerned. (2) The condition of employment mentioned in subsection (1) is a condition of employment the amount of the benefit of which (in case the condition is of a monetary nature) or the scope of the benefit of which (in any other case) is dependent on the number of hours worked by the employee. In this instant case I note that the bonus is based on attendance and there is logic of applying it on a pro-rata basis. I do not consider this to be a discriminatory act on the part of the Respondent. I find the Complainant’s complaint to be not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint. For the reasons outlined and based on the findings cited above, I have decided that the Complainant’s complaint is not well founded.
Dated: 15th July 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Part-time worker. Discrimination complaint for bonus not well founded. |