EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL OF: CASE NO.
Derek Michael Rothwell PW11/2014
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
Derek Michael Rothwell
Dublin Bus –Respondent
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1991
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. C. Corcoran B.L.
Members: Mr. L. Tobin
Ms P. Ni Sheaghdha
heard this appeal at Dublin on 2nd April 2015
Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr. Hugh Hannon, CIE Solicitors Office,
Bridgewater House, Bridgewater Quay, Islandbridge, Dublin 8
This case was before the Tribunal by way of an employee appealing a Decision of a Rights Commissioner, ref: r-136762-pw-13/EH, under the Payment Of Wages Act, 1991. The employee being referred to as the Appellant, the employer as the Respondent. The Respondent is a bus company. The Appellant is employed as a driver and he acts as a safety representative.
The Appellant gave evidence to the Tribunal. He was appointed health and safety (HSR) representative in April 2002. His predecessor had been there for 12 years. Having spoken to management the management told him that his predecessor would hold the role for the duration of his employment. The Appellant complained to the Health and Safety Authority (HSA). There was an election for the post of HSR and the Appellant won the election. In the post of HSR he had to complete a three-day course, which he did and he was awarded a FETAC level 5 award with merit. There was also a one day seminar and the trade union offered to pay for this. The Respondent company was approached and he was given a paid day off. The Appellant explained that he is a member of the National Irish Safety Organisation (NISO). He had studied the Health and Safety Act. He represents all drivers and managers in the garage. There are five other representatives (reps) in the garage. Two of these five reps are paid to be in attendance on Thursdays (in representative capacity).
The Appellant made representations to management to have a desk and phone to conduct his safety duties. He himself organised his own e-mail address so he could be contacted regarding safety matters. He attended numerous H&S seminars and he paid for his own expenses to attend these. He also joined IHSO, which cost €100.00.
The Appellant was asked to outline how much that he was due / claiming under the above Act. The Appellant answered that he felt that he should have been paid for the five hours overtime every week that he had worked on safety matters. This was €180.00 gross pay or circa €120.00 nett, for 140 weeks. He agreed that this was circa €25,200.00 gross pay in total.
The Tribunal heard evidence from PD who is the head of human resources. He explained that the company have 2,300 staff in eight locations, 7 of which are bus depots the other is the head office and they have H&S officers in all those locations. They have reps for all of the occupations. The Appellant is the rep for the driver grade. It is a voluntary position and an elected position. Regarding expenses for the employees in those positions the employees are elected and the roles are not full time positions. The employer facilitated the situation, and gave five days paid release per year during the year. The Respondent does have H&S manager positions; the Respondent has a full time H&S department, and those positions are held by trained people. The Appellant liaised with the H&S department.
The Tribunal having heard the evidence adduced determines that the Appellant is not due monies for the particular role that he took on. The position is a voluntary position. The Tribunal determines that the appeal fails and affirms the Decision of the Rights Commissioner, ref: r-136762-pw-13/EH, under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal