ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032703
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Shabbir Ahmed | G4S Secure Solutions (Ireland) Ltd. |
Representatives | Self-represented | Self-represented |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00043337-001 | 30/03/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00043390-001 | 04/04/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/02/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, these complaints were assigned to me by the Director General. While the complaints were referred to the WRC on March 30th and April 4th 2021, due to restrictions during the Covid-19 pandemic and postponements requested by the respondent, a hearing was delayed until February 18th 2022. I conducted a remote hearing on that date, at which I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaints.
Mr Shabbir represented himself at the hearing, and he was the only witness for his case. His former employer, G4S Secure Solutions (Ireland) Limited, was represented by a regional manager, Mr Thomas Timmins and a HR business partner, Mr Neil Fitzpatrick.
While the parties are named in this decision, from here on, I will refer to Mr Ahmed as “the complainant” and to G4S Secure Solutions as “the respondent.”
Background:
The complainant is a security officer and he commenced working with the respondent in December 2004. In 2014, he was assigned to provide security duties at an Amazon site and he has worked on this site since then. In December 2020, employees working on Amazon sites were offered an incentive of 65 cents extra per hour, on condition that certain performance indicators were achieved. The incentive was to be paid to the relevant employees in March 2021. The complainant achieved the performance indicators, but he was not paid the incentive. The complainant submitted a second complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. He claims that, in breach of the Employment Regulation Order for the Security Industry (“the ERO”) he has not been paid time and a half for working overtime after 78 hours per fortnight. In January 2021, the respondent lost the contract to provide security at Amazon sites and the complainant transferred to the new provider. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00043337-001: Complaint about the Payment of an Incentive In the documents he provided to the WRC in advance of the hearing, the complainant set out his case that he thinks that his employer confused him with another employee with the same first name. This other employee did not achieve the performance requirements of the Amazon incentive. CA-00043390-001: Complaint about the Payment of Overtime The complainant is aware that there is an ERO for the security industry which provides that a premium of time and a half is payable for overtime after 78 hours per fortnight. His complaint is that, for all the years that he worked with the respondent, he was never paid this overtime premium. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00043337-001: Complaint about the Payment of an Incentive At the hearing, Mr Fitzpatrick apologised to the complainant and said that the failure to pay the incentive was an error. He said that the complainant was entitled to an additional 65 cents per hour for 771 hours worked between December 1st 2020 and February 28th 2021. The amount owed is €501.15. CA-00043390-001: Complaint about the Payment of Overtime At the hearing, Mr Timmins informed me that employees in the company are in three pay groups: Group 1: Long-serving employees on a composite rate of pay. This pay mechanism closed in 2010. § Contracted to work 40 hours per week; § No overtime pay; § Unsocial / night shift allowance of €16.80; § Sunday allowance of €3.44; § Public holidays - double time and eight hours at premium rate; § Annual leave of 20 days and 22 days after five years; § Full pay while on sick leave for up to eight weeks. Group 2: Employees recruited between 2010 and 2015 who are on a JLC rate. § Contracted to work 39 hours per week; § Overtime is paid at time and a half after 78 hours; § Unsocial / night shift allowance of €16.80; § Sunday allowance of €3.44; § Public holidays - double time and eight hours at premium rate; § Annual leave of 20 days; § Full pay while on sick leave for up to four weeks. Group 3: Employees recruited from October 2015 who are on the ERO rate. § Contracted to work between eight and 48 hours per week; § Overtime is paid at time and a half after 96 hours; § No unsocial / night shift allowance; § Sunday allowance of €3.44; § Public holidays - double time – no premium rate; § Annual leave of 20 days; part-timers get 8% of hours worked; § Full pay while on sick leave is paid in accordance with service - up to four weeks. Mr Timmins said that the complainant was a long-serving employee and was paid in accordance with the terms set out under the heading of Group 1 above. The hourly rate of pay for employees in the ERO group, Group 3, is €11.65; the complainant was paid €12.54 per hour. Although he started from a higher base, the complainant has received the hourly increases applied by the ERO in 2017, 2018 and 2019. Mr Timmins said that overtime has never been an element of pay in Group 1, and, while he was employed by the respondent, the complainant never made a claim for overtime. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00043337-001: Complaint about the Payment of an Incentive After the hearing, the complainant sent an email to the WRC in which he confirmed that the number of hours in respect of which the incentive is owed is 771 and the amount owed is €501.15. CA-00043390-001: Complaint about the Payment of Overtime I have examined the information presented at the hearing by the complainant and the respondent. The respondent’s evidence is that the complainant worked 771 hours between December 1st 2020 and February 28th 2021, a period of just under 13 weeks. This means that he worked 60 hours each week during that period. A document which has the title “back-up to your payslip” for the fortnight ending on November 29th 2020, shows that he worked 124 hours in that fortnight, equivalent to 62 hours a week. He worked eight unsocial hours’ shifts during that period. A payslip dated February 26th 2021 shows that the complainant worked 138 hours in the fortnight ending on February 21st 2021, equivalent to 69 hours a week. He worked 10 unsocial hours’ shifts in that fortnight. The respondent operates three different pay rates. In Group 1, no overtime is paid. In Group 2, overtime is paid after 39 hours a week and in Group 3, overtime is paid after 48 hours a week. Employees in Groups 1 and 2 have an entitlement to an unsocial hours’ payment of €16.80 per shift. Group 3 has no such entitlement. Based on the information he presented to me, I estimate that the complainant works a significant number of unsocial shifts. As he is comparing his terms with that of the ERO Group, or Group 3, for the purpose of my investigation, I intend to ignore the terms paid in Group 2. The complainant is paid €12.54 per hour compared to the hourly rate in Group 3 of €11.65, a difference of 89 cents per hour. His hourly rate for overtime is his basic rate of €12.54, whereas the overtime rate for an employee in Group 3 is €17.48 (€11.65 x 1.5). The following table shows the wages paid to the complainant compared to an employee in Group 3, when both work 60 hours and 66 hours a week and when both work five unsocial hours’ shifts:
From this very basic enquiry, I am confident that, as a long-serving employee in Group 1 of the respondent’s pay groups, the complainant was on terms that are equivalent to or slightly better than the terms that apply in the ERO group. The reason for this is because he is on a higher hourly rate and he is entitled to a payment of €16.80 for working unsocial or night shifts. I find therefore, that the fact that he is paid a basic rate of pay for overtime does not contravene the terms of the ERO. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00043337-001: Complaint about the Payment of an Incentive I decide that this complaint is well founded and I note that the respondent has agreed to pay the complainant the amount due of €501.15. I therefore make no award of compensation. CA-00043390-001: Complaint about the Payment of Overtime Based on the findings which are set out above, I decide that this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 13-10-22
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Incentive pay, overtime, |