Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Trevor  Guilfoyle

Bluestream Waste Water Services

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00047846-001

27/12/2021

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

CA-00047846-002

27/12/2021

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

CA-00047846-003

27/12/2021

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

CA-00047846-004

27/12/2021

The Complainant withdrew CA 47846 -0002 and CA 47846 -003

The Complainant took the affirmation and gave his evidence as follows:

CA 47846 -001

The Complainant saw an advertisement for a tanker driver. He applied. He was interviewed. A few days later he got a call to say that the tanker would not be available for two to three weeks but there was other work available if he wanted it. He didn’t have a ticket to drive any other machinery, but he did want the work. He was advised that the tanker work was paid € 18.50 per hour and the other work was paid €19.50 per hour.

The Complainant spoke to several of his colleagues about their pay. It came up one day in casual conversation. One man, who started two or three weeks after him said that he was paid €21.50 per hour. He went to Mr. Phibbs to talk to him about his wages. He wasn’t there. He then sent him a Whatsapp but he did not reply. About sixteen minutes after that, he called him to tell him it was not working out. The Complainant was shocked as he had been getting on really well with the company, he thought.

CA 47846- 004

The Complainant got three days training on the tanker. That was on the 27th,28th and 29th October, 2021.  He did not get any breaks on those days.

CA – 47846 -001

The agreement made between the Complainant and the Respondent was that he would be paid          €18.50 per hour. There was a delay with the truck so it was agreed that the Complainant would do other work until the truck was ready. There was no issue with this.

The Complainant is correct that other staff are paid €21.50 per hour. These employees are very experienced and require no supervision at all. The Complainant was inexperienced. If he had stay on with the Company, he too would have been paid the higher rate eventually.

The Respondent has never heard of the figure of €19.50 before today. He never raised a grievance about it, and it is not set out in the claim form. Nobody is paid that figure and the Respondent is at a loss to know where the Complainant got that figure from.

CA 47846 – 003

The timesheet for the days in question, the 27th, 28th and 29th October do not reflect the Complainant’s evidence. His supervisor was not informed that he was not getting his breaks at the time.  On one of the timesheets for the week after there is a note that he was informed by his supervisor that he had to take his breaks. He was work off site on his own, so it was actually up to him to take his breaks. He was aware of this as he had attended a toolbox talk in relation to taking lunch breaks.

CA 47846 -001

The Complainant alleges that whilst a figure of €18.50 per hour was agreed for driving the tanker, there was a further agreement to pay him €19.50 per hour for carrying out other tasks while waiting for the truck to arrive. He also alleges that he should have been paid the rate €21.50 per hour that some of his colleagues were being paid.

There is no disagreement between the parties in relation to the rate of €18.50 per hour. In relation to the rate of €19.50 per hour, the Complainant failed to set out any details about that separate agreement in his claim form and I accept the Respondent’s evidence that today was the first time they ever heard of it. If there had been a separate agreement, I would expect to have heard some evidence in relation to attempts the Complainant made to rectify the error whilst he was still working for the Respondent. The only evidence in relation to pay related discrepancies was when the Complainant went to talk to the Respondent about some of his colleagues being paid €21.50 per hour.  I am further satisfied that those who were paid €21.50 p/h was more experienced than the Complainant and therefore were paid a higher rate.

In all of the circumstances I find that the complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails.

CA 47846 -003

The Complainant alleges that he did not get his breaks on three days in October, specifically the 27th , 28th and 29th. The Complainant did not address that with his Supervisor at the time. Furthermore, the timesheets do not reflect the Complainant’s allegation. The Complainant was given a toolbox talk on the importance of taking his breaks particularly when he would be working alone and off site.

I find that the complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails.

CA 47846 -001 – The complaint fails.

CA 47846 – 003 The complaint fails.