ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027293
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A public servant | A public service |
Representatives | SIPTU | In-house representative |
Dispute
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00034883-001 | 27/02/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/01/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 27th February 2020, the worker submitted a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act. The dispute was referred to adjudication on the 7th January 2021.
The worker attended the hearing and was represented by SIPTU. Three representatives of the employer attended. This adjudication was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The worker seeks payment of 11 hours of pay in respect of overtime worked. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker outlined that he was owed double pay for a shift he undertook on the 4th June 2016. He had worked a 39-hour week, Monday to Friday. He was then given an overtime shift that weekend. The worker outlined that he obliged a colleague, who could not do their shift for childcare reasons. He outlined that the local process had been complied with, as the colleague had approached the line manager. In reply to the employer, the worker outlined that the colleague had sourced the shift swap, and this was approved. The worker was on a rest day and, therefore, entitled to the double time. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer outlined that, in respect of this public service, overtime on a rest day is normally paid double time and this is a special agreement for the service. The longstanding procedure in the region was that overtime shifts cannot be swapped because this could be problematic. In this case, while a swap was agreed, it was not recorded on a system. The worker worked a ‘normal’ shift, and this was why double time was not paid. A rest day premium cannot apply to a shift swap as this increases the costs for the employer and make the system unmanageable. The normal rate of overtime is time and a quarter and double time for overtime on a rest day. Any shift swap must be within process. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This dispute relates to what happened in or around the 4th June 2016 and the processes then in place in the particular regional sector. It does not have general ramifications because it stems from the events of this case. Having considered the submissions, I recommend that the employer pay the worker the eleven hours of pay due. The worker accepted the offer of an overtime shift and agreed to the swap to facilitate a colleague. This all occurred within the terms of the process in being locally. The worker was paid the basic pay due for this eleven-hour shift, but not the eleven additional hours due as over-time. For the above reasons, I recommend that these eleven hours of pay be paid to the worker. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
CA-00034883-001 I recommend that the employer pay to the worker the eleven hours of pay due in respect of the overtime worked on the 4th June 2016. |
Dated: 1st September 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations dispute / overtime pay |