INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
COMPACT WATERFORD COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR11997/02/GF.
2. The worker was employed on the Compact Waterford Community Employment scheme from October, 1999, to October, 2002. He was employed at Waterpark College. His duties included cleaning school ground inside and out and moving furniture. His claim is that during this time he was asked by the School Principal to aid the regular caretaker to supervise students during lunch breaks, something that the employer strongly denies happened. He is seeking compensation for the hours worked.
The worker referred his case to a Rights Commissioner whose findings and recommendation were as follows:
"I expect there is something on the complaint, but there is no remedy available to me in the circumstances.
I find for the respondent."
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 28th of April, 2003, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd of October, in Waterford, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The worker aided the regular caretaker for a period of approximately 18 months. He believes that he worked a total of 40 hours for which he was not compensated. People were recruited to carry out the supervisory work and were well paid for it. The worker believes that he has a legitimate case.
4. 1. The worker was not asked to supervise the students,in fact he was told not to become involved in supervision. The teachers' dispute was ongoing at the time and there was enough people to cover supervision. The worker was paid all monies due to him.
The Court can see no justification for this claim. Even if the claimant did supervision duties (which is denied) he was not asked to do so by his then employer. Furthermore, there is no question of the claimant having been employed under the scheme put in place by the Department of Education and Science under which the payments which he now claims were made.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th October, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.