FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : IRISH RAIL DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s). ADJ-00032443 CA-00042963-001,002. A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on 14 January 2022.
The employer submitted that the worker’s basic rate of pay was ‘red circled’ in 2014 but no commitment was given to him that a revenue approved ‘zoning allowance’ would continue to be paid when he no longer fulfilled the revenue approved conditions for receipt of same. Similarly, the employer submitted that no commitment was given to him that overtime would continue to be paid to him when he was not required to work overtime. It was submitted that the Claimant did receive ‘zoning allowance’ payments and overtime until 2019 through error or other circumstance. This situation was discovered by a new manager in 2019 and was terminated. It was submitted that separate matters were being dealt with in respect of the supervisor / manager responsible for authorising such payments over that period. The Court has listened carefully to the oral submissions of the parties and considered carefully the written submission of the parties. The Court notes that no written ‘red circle’ agreement has been provided to the Court, albeit an e-mail dating from 2021 was provided which appears to assure the worker that whenever he fulfilled the conditions for payment of a ‘zoning allowance’ or for payment of overtime he would receive such payments. It is the Court’s understanding that the worker seeks to have applied to him a revenue approved ‘zoning allowance’ when he fulfils none of the revenue approved conditions for such tax-free payments. The Court also understands that the worker seeks to have payment made to him in respect of overtime working when he is not engaged in such working. The Court is unable to recommend payment of revenue approved tax-free payments as an industrial relations matter. The administration of revenue requirements is a responsibility of the employer, and no contention has been made that the dispute involves a failure to make the relevant payment when the conditions for receipt of the ‘zoning allowance are met. The claim is that such payments should continue when none of the conditions for receipt of same are met. The Court therefore does not recommend in favour of the worker’s claim in relation to ‘zoning allowance’. The Court understands that the worker ceased receiving overtime payments in 2019. The Court is aware that agreements are in place in the employment for payment of compensation for loss of overtime payments when certain conditions are met. The parties were unable to say whether the worker concerned in this appeal meets the agreed conditions for payment of compensation for loss of overtime. The Court therefore recommends that the parties examine this matter in the context of established collective agreement dealing with compensation for loss of overtime and that those agreements should be applied to the worker if he meets the relevant conditions. The Court so decides.
NOTE |
