LCR22719

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s) ADJ-00038771, CA-00049731-001

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The Adjudication Officer had issued the following Recommendation:

"I recommend that the employer takes no further action with regard to this grievance."

A Labour Court hearing took place on 22 February 2023.

DECISION:

Background to the Dispute

This is an appeal by the Worker from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00038771/CA-00049731-001, dated 18 November 2022) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 13 December 2022. The Court heard the appeal in a virtual courtroom on 22 February 2023.

The Worker has been employed by the HSE/ the Western Health Board (‘the Respondent’) as a General Operative since 1977. The dispute arises from the Worker’s claim that he worked regular and rostered overtime on all public holidays between October 2019 and December 2020. It is the Worker’s contention that the work he previously did on public holidays has now been outsourced to an external contractor and he is, therefore, seeking a buyout of his regular and rostered overtime according to the established formula of 1.5 times his annual loss.

The Worker’s Submission

The Worker submits that the overtime hours he worked had been approved by his then-line manager/foreman who has since retired. According to the Worker, he was first approached to do the overtime on public holidays when a colleague who had been doing the work went on long-term sick leave.

(The Worker has a separate claim for payment of the overtime hours in question. This claim was considered by the Court in CD/22/242.)

The Respondent’s Submission

It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the overtime hours claimed by the Worker were not approved in advance. It is also submitted that as soon as it came to the attention of the relevant area Manager that the Worker was purporting to perform the disputed overtime on public holidays he directed the Worker, via his Foreman, to cease doing so as it was not required in circumstances where an existing long-standing external contractor had provided an increased waste-disposal facility with sufficient capacity to cater for public holiday weekends.

The Respondent also submitted that the Worker had previously received substantial payments by way of buy-out for regular and rostered overtime, totalling €15,343.00.

Discussion and Decision

The Worker has not established to the Court’s satisfaction that he had prior approval to work the overtime hours on public holidays that are the subject of the within dispute. Neither has the Worker refuted the Respondent’s submission that he was instructed by the Area Manager, via his foreman, to immediately cease performing such overtime when the matter came to the former’s attention. It follows, therefore, that he was not performing pre-approved, regular and rostered overtime the cessation of which warrants compensation.

Having regard to the foregoing, the Court finds that the within claim is not well-founded and the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
NCL	______________________
28 February 2023	Deputy Chairman