ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027460
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A worker | An Employer |
Representatives | Ger Mooney Connect Trade Union | Tom Kennedy |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015 | CA-00035158-001 | 10/03/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/01/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following 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 worker has been employed by the employer as a Contract Fitter since June 2007. He is currently paid €22.50 per hour. The dispute concerns the level of wages paid to the worker under the Sectorial Employment Order governing Mechanical Engineering Building Services Contracting Sector. This hearing was held by way of remote hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The worker submitted that he should be paid in accordance with the Sectorial Employment Order governing the Mechanical Engineering Building Services Contracting Sector. The worker submitted ten days prior to the hearing that he was entitled to be paid a premium for shift work he undertook as part of his duties. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The employer submitted that they were not made aware of the dispute regarding a premium payment for shift work at the time of presentation of this dispute and as such it is a new claim and does not come within the scope of this hearing and recommendation. The employer submitted that the SEO does not apply to their work as they are maintaining toymaking machinery within a client company rather than maintaining the buildings themselves. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of both parties regarding the payment of a shift work premium, I am satisfied that this element did not comprise part of the original complaint and as such does not form part of this deliberation. The definition contained in the Sectorial Employment Order is as follows: “For the purposes of this Sectoral Employment Order the Mechanical Engineering Building Services Contracting Sector means the sector of the economy comprising the following economic activity:— The installation, alteration, fabrication, fitting, repair, maintenance, commission, removal and demolition in any building or its sites of articles, fittings, pipes, containers, tubes or instruments, storage facilities, etc. (including central heating apparatus, central plant apparatus, machinery and fuel containers connected thereto) for heating, cooling, including domestic hot and cold water systems, medical and process gases, process pipe services, utility pipe services and compressed and vacuum services of such buildings.” Having considered the submissions of the worker, I find that the worker has not established that he is in employment for the purposes as outlined in the SEO, i.e. “for heating, cooling, including domestic hot and cold water systems, medical and process gases, process pipe services, utility pipe services and compressed and vacuum services of such buildings”. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
My decision is that the complaint was not well founded. |
Dated: 15th March 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Complaint under the Industrial Relations Act, not well founded |