ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001354
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Research Institute |
Representatives | Peter Glynn SIPTU | HR Manager |
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 - 00001354 | 03/05/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Date of Hearing: 21/11/2023
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.
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 issue in dispute concerns the alleged Loss of Earnings by the Worker following the closure/reorganisation of Work on a Farm by the Employer. The Employment began in 1978 and continues. The rate of pay was the agreed Institute Operative rate for a 39-hour week. |
1: Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker gave an oral testimony and was Represented by Mr Glynn from SIPTU. The Worker has been employed as a Farm Operative since 1978. He quickly displayed an aptitude for Machinery Operations and has effectively been a Tractor Driver /Machine Operator for many years. His principal place of work was Newford Farm. In April 2015 the pattern of work on NN Farm changed requiring much less Tractor/Machinery Work. The Worker was then assigned work on the Farm near Town A. This work was basically Operative Work, and the suggested Overtime there (mostly Sheep Lambing etc) was completely unsuitable to his skills as a Tractor Driver/Machinery Operator. Approaches were made by SIPTU in late 2018 early 2019. Considerable correspondence was exchanged but no resolution could be arrived at. COVID 19 intervened and the dispute remained on hold until 2022. Accordingly, he feels that he is due compensation for the loss of earnings from Newford. Offers of alternative Overtime are completely unsuitable.
|
2: Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer gave Ora testimony supported by a comprehensive Written Submission. Ms A and Ms B of the HR Department were the principal Spokespersons. In essence, the Employer, a State /Public Farm research Institute maintained that the Worker/SIPTU had failed to particularise their claim / supply back up details in late 2018/early 2019. The Institute provided detailed figure to the Hearing to demonstrate that the Worker had suffered little or no loss of earnings since 2015 and in effect, by refusing Overtime, actually lost money by his own doing. The Institute is covered by the Department of Public Enterprise and Reform and the General Public Service / ICTU Agreement in regard to Loss of Earnings/Pensionability of Allowances. This followed Labour Court Rec 20448 and the Haddington Road Agreement. The Management Officers concerned were not personally unsympathetic to the Worker but could only carry out Public Policy as laid down by the Haddington Road Agreement and the Dept of PI and Reform. A clear case for loss of earnings was not demonstrated or supported by Wage records. In addition, the Worker by refusing offered Overtime was only making things worse for himself.
|
3: Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
It is recognised that the Institute was correct in their Wage analysis and no sustainable case, on the bare facts alone, could be made.
However much rested in this case on the Oral testimony of the Parties especially the Worker. He had now almost 45 years with the Institute. The vast bulk of this time was as a Tractor/Machinery Driver. It was skilled work that he took a lot of pride in.
It appeared from SIPTU that an offer/understanding may had been floated at an early stage but had disappeared in the Covid confusions. This was very unclear and not acknowledged by the Respondents as having any official status.
To the Adjudicator, (personally very experienced in many Rural Co-Op and Local Authority Industrial Relations cases over the years,) it was clear that the Worker was in effect making a “loss of status” case. The Overtime offered, it appeared, to be largely relating to Sheep Lambing and related basic labouring work. In a Rural /Farming context the loss of status perceived by the Worker could be understood.
Clearly this possibly very rural concept is possibly not covered by the Haddington Road Agreement.
After some 45 years work, without complaint, the Institute might be expected to find a work around on a strictly “Red Letter” personal basis to make some recognition of the Worker’s case.
.
|
4: Recommendation:
IR-- SC - 00001354
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
It is Recommended that
- A once off “Red Letter” strictly Personal to Holder (with no repercussive or relativity claims by SIPTU or other Parties) Lump Sum of €1,000 be made to the Worker in full and final settlement of this claim. The possibility of making this as an AVC towards the Worker’s Pension is suggested.
Dated: 29/01/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Loss of Earnings/ Loss of Status, Rural Work. |