Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001838
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A HGV Driver | A Distribution Company |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Mr W. Parkes, Solicitor of Warren Parkes Solicitors |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00001838 | 01/10/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Date of Hearing: 25/10/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Allied Adjudication
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a HGV Delivery Driver from August 2006 to date. A disputed employment end date of the 27/09/2023 was stated but was vigorously contested by the Respondent who maintained that the Complainant was still employed at the Company. The Complainant strongly held that he had been unfairly treated in relation to payments for a Sick absence period following an accident in late 2022.
The rate of pay was stated to have been €720 for a 40-hour week.
|
1: Summary of Workers Case:
In his Complaint form the Worker stated that the company did not pay proper overtime. The Pay Slips provided did not specify the Working Hours or the Rate of Pay per Hour. He had refused to do certain “irregular” Overtime hours as they were not properly recorded. |
2: Summary of Employer’s Case:
Written evidence, which included a Pay slip, indicated that the Pay recording system was normal. There was no case to answer. As regards “irregular” Overtime this was denied, and no specific dates were provided such that the Employer could examine or comment on. |
3: Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The Payroll system was in keeping with normal business practices and there did not appear to be any cause for complaint.
The main issue in the background was the non-payment of sick pay for the full period of absence from November 2022 to March 2023.
The Worker chose to pursue this via the Sick Leave Act,2022. |
4: Recommendation:
IR-SC - 00001838
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
- The Recommendation is that the Employer Payroll system be accepted as in keeping with normal business practices.
- In relation to the Sick Pay following the accident in November 2022 it is Recommended that local discussions, referred to during the Hearing, be pursued further.
Dated: 10/12/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Pay Roll system, Overtime |