This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

Return to Search

LCR22293

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/20/137
ADJ-00024940 CA-31717001

DECISION NO. LCR22293

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

FLOORTECH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY HALLISSEY AND PARTNERS SOLICITORS)

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

Chairman:	Mr Foley
Employer Member:	Ms Doyle
Worker Member:	Ms Treacy

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No. ADJ-00024940.

BACKGROUND:

2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation.
On the 8 April 2020, the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation: -

“I have not found merit in the dispute.”

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour

Court on the 13^th May 2020 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21^st October 2020.

DECISION :

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

It is common case that during the disputed period of 2017 to 2019 this employer paid overtime (defined as hours worked beyond the standard working week) to the worker at flat time or at premium rates depending on the day of the week or time of day during which the overtime working was actually worked. The claim before the Court is for premium rates to be paid on those occasions of overtime working when flat time was paid.

The employer submitted that the rates of overtime and the overtime regime which applied to the worker during the disputed period was identical to the rates and regime which applied to all fourteen workers in the employment during that period. The Trade Union did not dispute the submission of the employer on this point and stated that it had not spoken to any other worker in relation to the matter.

The Court recognises that the dispute before the Court is in respect of one worker. The Court also recognises that the overtime rates paid by the employer and the regime which applied during the disputed period are unusual to the degree that they may in fact be unique. The Court is satisfied however that the claim is for a change to be applied to the overtime rates paid and the overtime regime which applied to the worker and all of his colleagues in the period of 2017 to 2019.

The Court is a creature of statute and this dispute has come before the Court in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 at Section 13.

The Industrial Relations Act, 1969 at Section 13(2) addresses the issue of the jurisdiction of an Adjudication Officer and by extension this Court on appeal as follows:

13( 2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.

The Court concludes that the within trade dispute, being a dispute as regards the rates of overtime pay paid to a group of workers, is in fact a dispute connected with the rates of pay of a body of workers. In those circumstances the Court, having regard to the Act at Section 13(2), has concluded that it must decline jurisdiction in the matter.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

	Kevin Foley
NJ	______________________
04 November 2020	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Noel Jordan, Court Secretary.