ADJ-00030179

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Martina Weir SIPTU

Amanda Kane Local Government Management Agency (LGMA)

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00040307-001

08/10/2020

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The worker submitted that he transferred from one section to another in June 2017 on a part-time basis, the move being made permanent that November. 

The worker submitted that he was offered overtime every second weekend during the spring of 2018. 

The worker then submitted that in on four occasions in the autumn 5&6 August, 16 September and 14 October 2018 he was offered overtime, which he accepted before the overtime offer was withdrawn at short notice and the overtime was offered to another person form another section.  The worker submitted that his former supervisor offered him the overtime by phone, but also withdrew the offer by phone.

The worker submitted that the was a general instruction on the part of one of his supervisors that he shouldn’t get to do overtime.  He has received no overtime since that time.

The worker suggested that he was out of pocket for the four date, amounting to €816.00.

The worker suggested that he had an expectation of undertaking overtime for 26 Sundays during the period October 2018 to February 2020 and accordingly he is seeking €5715.00 as compensation for those dates.  The worker is also seeking an explanation as to why he was excluded from doing overtime.

The employer submitted that the offering of overtime to employees is on the basis of a three-group priority system.  The first category of employees to be offered overtime are the employees who work from 9 – 5 in the Section requiring overtime.  If there are not enough volunteers for the overtime from the first group, the overtime was offered to the second group.  The second group offered overtime are other employees from within the same Department as the Section while the third category were employees form other Departments and Sections.

The employer submitted that the worker originally worked in the section where the overtime was being carried out, but that following his move he would have changed from the priority one group to the priority three group.

The employer indicated that they had no record of any engagement with the worker regarding the dates he claims that he was offered overtime.

The employer indicated that overtime was offered by groups the was no instruction to not give the worker overtime but that it simply followed the policy.

The worker was employed in on section of the employer’s business.  He contended that following his move to another section, he was denied the overtime he expected to get.  The respondent submitted that the workers move form one section to another resulted in him losing priority in relation to getting overtime.  The worker confirmed that there was no contractual obligation on the employer to provide him with overtime.  The worker was not able to provide detail of any other worker form another Section Department who was receiving overtime from this original section.  Having considered this issue, I conclude that upon his move out of the section and department, changed his priority to be considered for overtime and accordingly there was no expectation of guaranteed overtime.

The worker submitted that he was engaged to do overtime on four occasions but that this was rescinded at short notice on four occasions.  He submitted that accordingly he was out of pocket.  The employer in turn indicated that for the first two occasions, the overtime was given to a person from the priority one grouping.  Apart from that, the employer was unable to shed any light or contradictory testimony regarding the final two dates, 16 September and 14 October 2018.  Accordingly, I conclude that the worker was left out of pocket having committed to undertake the overtime on two specific occasions and had reorganised his time accordingly.

In accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 I recommend that in the facts of this particular dispute the worker be compensated for the two dates on which he was engaged to undertake overtime, namely 16 September 2018 and 14 October 2018.  The amount of such compensation should be €404.00 (50% of the amount claimed by the worker)

I further recommend that the employer put in place a system whereby an employee is offered overtime in writing and if the offer is rescinded, the reason should be noted.

Industrial relations overtime dispute, recommendation for compensation