ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053421
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Shane Larkin | Ocs One Complete Solution Ltd. |
Representatives | Self-represented | IBEC |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00065139-001 | 01/08/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/11/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint. The hearing was a remote hearing. There was no evidence taken under oath or affirmation as the facts of the case were not in dispute.
Background:
A new Employment Regulation Order (ERO) for minimum rates of pay in the contract cleaning sector came into effect on 1st June 2024. Prior to 1st June 2024, Mr. Larkin, the complainant, was earning €14.40 per hour. From 3rd June 2024, his hourly rate increased to €15.40 per hour up to 16th June 2024. His hourly rate then reduced back to €15.00 per hour from 16th June 2024 onwards. He claims that there is an unfairness as his pay increased by €1 per hour for two weeks and then reduced back to a 60c increase. His differential was not maintained with those who have benefited from the minimum increases. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant outlined how his pay increased by €1 per hour and then reduced within two weeks. He claims that there is an unfairness as his differential with those on minimum rates has not been maintained. His complaint is that there has been a breach of the ERO. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent representative submitted that the company was in compliance with the ERO as the minimum rates are paid. The complainant’s rate was higher than the ERO and a €1 increase was applied for two weeks pending clarification on the appropriate increase. From enquiries and clarification with a union in the sector, the respondent was satisfied that a 60c increase should be applied. Once this clarification was received, it amended the complainant’s rate of pay accordingly. It was submitted that the complainant did not raise this issue directly with the respondent prior to referring the complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having reviewed the submissions and listened to the position of both parties, there is no conflict on the actual adjustments made to the complainant’s hourly rate of pay. The complainant outlined that there is an unfairness as his hourly rate is not increasing in line with the new minimum rates. The Adjudication Officers remit under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 is to decide on whether there has been a contravention of the ERO itself. As the ERO increased the minimum rates and the complainant’s rate was higher, there has been no contravention of the Act. For the reasons outlined, I decide that the complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00065139-001 I decide that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 02-12-24
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Employment Regulation Order |