Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Andrea Cleere SIPTU

 Represented

Represented

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA00044796-001

25/06/2021

The Worker is seeking a payment of €375.00 on foot of an agreement entered into in February 2018 in relation to the use of a handheld device used to collect data.

The Worker operates a hand-held device which is used for the purposes of recording and reporting figures which are uploaded to the Contractor.  The Worker receives a payment based on these figures twice a year from his employer, the criteria and rules that are in place for eligibility of this payment are set out by the Contractor. In 2018 a new process was introduced by the Contractor and the criteria regarding eligibility was altered, however the Contractor and the employer failed to advise the Worker regarding the steps of the new process and eligibility. This resulted in the Worker not receiving a payment for work completed that was due to him from his employer. This issue was raised by the Worker at local level with Management. The Worker contacted his employer who advised him of the correct procedure. The Worker has received payments for the work carried since he was informed of the correct process. Aggrieved by the non-payment representations were made on the Workers behalf at local level.  Local Management were supportive of the claim and made a business case to the Contractor requesting that a payment of €375 for the Worker. This position was rejected by The Contractor. Unfortunately, the Worker has no alternative but to refer his case to the WRC.

The Water Services Section operate under a Service Level Agreement with the Contractor. In February 2018 A WRC proposal issued regarding use of handheld devices. The relevant section of that proposal is as follows:

“A gross taxable non pensionable payment of €750 payable in 2 equal instalments of €375 yearly on the 31st of March and the 30th of September to identify designated water service staff under the SLA using HHD who have incurred additional responsibilities as outlined above, the first payment of €375 will be made on the 31st of March 2018”.

The Employer was unaware of the changes made by the Contractor to the qualifying conditions for payment of bonus for use of handheld terminals. In May 2018 the Contractor advised the Employer  that a number of operatives, including the worker, did not qualify for the payment. The Employer was invited to make a business case which we did by email dated 1st June 2018. The Contractor responded on 8th June 2018 but did not accept the business case in respect of the worker. The Employer responded by email dated 2nd July 2021 putting on record its view that the list agreed by the Contractor was incomplete. The Employer wrote to the Worker on 2nd July 2018 advising him of his approval for one payment only. The sum of € 375.00 remains outstanding.

The workers union have made further representations on behalf of the worker. Whilst the Employer is supportive of his claim for eligibility, there is no internal avenue open to the Employer to progress the matter further.

There is no real conflict between the parties in relation to this matter. The Respondent states that the worker did and does continue to meet the criteria for the payment in relation to the use of the handheld device. However, their hands are tied due to the existence of the Service level agreement. They have made efforts to secure the payment for the Worker but unfortunately the contractor will not sanction it.

I note that in February the parties herein, together with the Contractor, entered into an agreement wherein it was agreed that the sum, the subject matter of this claim, be paid to the Worker. That agreement should have been honoured at that time. It was not.

Having carefully considered the matter I am making the following recommendations:

1.      On foot of the agreement entered into in February 2018 the Respondent should pay to the worker, within one week from receipt of this recommendation, the sum of € 375.00.

2.      The Respondent should forward a copy of this recommendation to the contractor and seek a refund of the sum paid to the Worker.

3.      The parties should note that this recommendation is specific to this worker only, and should not be used as a precedent for any other matter.  

1.      On foot of the agreement entered into in February 2018 the Respondent should pay to the worker, within one week from receipt of this recommendation, the sum of € 375.00.

2.      The Respondent should forward a copy of this recommendation to the Contractor and seek a refund of the sum paid to the Worker.

3.      The parties should note that this recommendation is specific to this Worker only and should not be used as a precedent for any other matter. 

Service Level Agreement. Proposal. Payments.