Complainant/The Worker

Respondent/The Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Event Steward

A Security Company

Representatives

  Self-Represented

 A Manager

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946

CA-00032305-001

18/11/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00032305-002

18/11/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00032305-003

18/11/2019

A Hearing on this case was held on February 10th, 2020. At the initial Hearing the information available to address the claims was not available and the Complainant and Respondent were given the opportunity to submit more details regarding the claims. Subsequent to the Hearing substantial correspondence was entered between the parties to provide further information which was relevant to the claims that was not available at the Hearing. Due to the Respondent staff being largely unable to access their premises due to Covid restrictions, the inter communication between the parties took a considerable amount of time. The claims relate to whether the rate of pay per the Security ERO applies to the Complainant, whether there was an unlawful deduction from wages for transport to events and whether the Complainant was properly paid for hours he was required to be available for work but was not called upon to work.

Note; All references to “the Complainant” under the Industrial Relations Act should be read as “the Worker” and all references under the same Act to “the Respondent” should be read as “the Employer”.

The Complainant submitted three claims against the Respondent.

The first claim is that the Complainant maintained he was covered by the ERO for the Security Industry and that the Respondent contention that the ERO only relates to Static Security work and not to door security or event work was incorrect and that the Complainant was entitled to the minimum rate of pay per the ERO (CA-00032305-001)

The second claim related to an unlawful deduction from the Complainants wages relating to work in a city over 60 miles from where the Complainant lived and where the Respondent deducted 10 euros per day for the provision of a bus to the event over four days and the Complainant stated that it should be either 0 or 8 Euros per day (CA-00032305-002)

The third claim related to an event in Galway on June 2nd 2018 where the Complainant was on standby for 6 hours of an 11 hour shift and due to a delay in the start of the event for safety reasons, the Complainant went to the event but the event was cancelled and the Complainant was seeking pay for 25% of the time he did not work under the OWT Act (zero Hours),  (CA-00032305-003).

The Respondent submitted the Complainants contract of employment subsequent to the Hearing. The Contract stated the Complainant was employed as an “Event Steward” and he was employed on a casual basis. The hours of work were to be determined by the Complainants availability and that a roster would be presented to him when events are available. The rate of pay was stated as 9.75 Euros per hour and the “JLC/ERO regulations do not apply to Event Stewards”.

The Respondent submitted a number of statements from employees and the Complainants direct event Manager that he was only employed as an Event person and not security and the duties he performed were consistent with event control and not security. The Respondent stated that the Complainant never performed any of their Door Security or Static Security Guard functions and the Complainant did not have a Static Security Guard Licence from the Private Security Authority and if he completed security duties it would be breaking the law.

With regard to the “Galway Event” the Respondent stated that all hours worked were paid to the Complainant, that on that day there was extremely bad weather and the event was cancelled for safety reasons and no one worked at the event, that the Respondent did not get paid from the Event Company and all staff were paid 2 hours work at the Event, which was 25% of the hours claimed by the Complainant.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant responded to an advert for an Event Steward and worked occasionally, approximately 82 hours in total. The Complainant did not have a PSA Licence at the time of interview. On March 12th, 2019 the Complainant emailed the Respondent as follows “I would like to thank you for the clarification. Learning about the ERO was helpful. By way of an aside, even in the absence of a legislative provision, for the work I am engaged in the current rate of pay seems extremely low”.

The Complainant was paid 10 euros per hour and the Minimum Wage was 9.80 per hour at that time.

With regard to the bus deduction the Respondent stated that when some events are on there is a bus that staff can use to go to the event which costs 5 Euros each way and staff are notified about this option as was the Complainant. The Respondent contributes to the cost of the bus. Staff who take the bus normally take it both journeys. In relation to the deduction on July 5th the Respondent explained the cost to the Complainant and he did not communicate on the issue until November 18th, 2019 when the Complainant submitted a screenshot from his Supervisor showing a cost of 8 Euros per two-way trip. This was an error by the Supervisor, but the Respondent refunded the Complainant on November 22nd, 2019, 8 Euros for the 4 trips.

While this case involved considerable time, communications and effort by both parties and the WRC, I feel obliged to put the claim in context. The open claims amount to a total of 131.94 Euros and all claims amounted to a maximum of 171.94 Euros.

The claim under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 relates to a claim as to whether the Security Regulation Order applies to the Complainant. The Complainant sought the difference between his actual hourly rate of pay and the ERO rate which amounted to a difference of 124.69 euros for the total of 82.25 hours worked.

The employees who are governed by the Security Industry must be providing “a service or security or surveillance nature, the purpose of which is to protect persons and property.”

The primary functions of security operatives covered by the ERO are stated in the two relevant agreements as follows;

“The prevention or detection of theft, loss, embezzlement, misappropriation or concealment of merchandise, money, bonds, stocks, notes or other valuables,

The prevention or detection of intrusion, unauthorised entry or activity vandalism or trespass on private property either by physical, electronic or mechanical means.

The enforcement of rules, regulations and policies related to crime reduction.

The protection of individuals from bodily harm.”

The Complainant sought the difference between his actual hourly rate of pay and the ERO rate which amounted to a difference of 124.69 euros for the total of 82.25 hours worked.

From the evidence provided at both the Hearing and in subsequent submissions from a number of staff who worked with the Complainant there is a divergence of views between the Complainants version of his duties performed and the submissions of staff that worked with the Complainant.  The Complainant alleged he performed duties of an enforcement of rules, regulations and policies related to crime reduction and the protection of individuals from bodily harm, both duties of a Security Operative. He stated he would search individuals and or their bags on entrance to concerts, direct individuals in the interest of health and safety regarding their behaviour, order removal from the venue if too intoxicated, guard queues and entrances to avoid crowd crush, guard entrances to First aid stations to protect first aid staff and inspect ID in order to prevent underage drinking. The Respondent and its staff submitted that the Complainant checked tickets, directed staff to seats, stewarding and directing people to toilets. Specifically, the Respondent Operations Manager or Supervisors denied ever asking or seeing the Complainant perform duties of a “Security Operative”.

In this case of a dispute between the parties as to what duties were performed two key factors for consideration are the Job Title of the Complainant and the ERO Regulations as to what Job Titles are included for the ERO to apply. The Complainants Job Title was “Event Steward”. The job categories and roles recognised for inclusion in the ERO are set out in SI No 195/2015 Private Security Licencing Regulations which include 11 different role/job titles and the Regulations do not include the job title of an “Event Steward”.  

The Complainants Contract of Employment stated “JLC/ERO regulations do not apply to Event Stewards” thus the intention of the Respondent was that the Complainant was not to complete “security” duties.

The Complainant alleged that as he had a PSA Licence that he was covered by the ERO. However, on examination of the Complainants written submission subsequent to the Hearing the documentation showed an application for a Licensed Premises Door Security Licence and the supporting documentation did not show an actual licence. Even if the Complainant had received this Licence there was no requirement for him to have this Licence to perform the duties of Event Steward and it specifically only applied to Licenced Premises which the Complainants assignments did not seem to involve working at Licenced Premises per see but events.

The second claim relates to the Payment of Wages Act 1991 concerning the deduction of 10 euros on four occasions.  By email to the WRC dated March 11th, 2020 the Complainant stated” The complaint (CA-00032305-002 is deemed to have been resolved at the Hearing on February 10th and as such is not an issue”.

The third claim relates to the Organisation of Working Time Act and concerns payment of 25% of hours the Complainant was available for work but did not work. The Complainant stated he was available 11 hours and the Respondent stated he was only available 8 hours and they paid the Complainant 2 Hours i.e. 25%. Therefore, the difference between the parties is 25% of 3 Hours equal to 30 Euros x 25% = 7 Euros 25 Cent.  From the supporting documentation it is difficult to see which version of event is totally correct.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a Recommendation in relation to the dispute (CA-00032305-001). I am satisfied that the intent, contract, job title and duties of the Worker were such as not to fulfil any of the criteria of a Security Operative under the ERO for Security and I recommend in favour of the Employer.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. This decision relates to claim number (CA-00032305-002). I deem the claim not well founded due to the Complainants statement that the matter is “not an issue”.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. This decision relates to claim number (CA-00032305-003). I believe the Complainants version of events is more compelling and I find in favour of the Complainant and award him 7 Euros and 25 cents wages.

ERO Regulations