FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : K-TECH SECURITY LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Contract / working hours.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a claim by the Worker that his initial contract of employment entitled him to be paid for forty hours' work per week.
On the 6th October 2015, the Worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th November, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. The Company reduced the Worker's hours without consultation or negotiation.
2. The Company have failed to provide the Worker with his full contracted hours of 40 per week.
3. The Worker was never paid while he was suspended.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The prevailing economic climate has had a major effect on weekly Staff rosters.
2. The Company has had to continually reorganise and optimise the deployment of its workforce.
RECOMMENDATION:
This is a referral made under Section 20(1) of the industrial Relations Act, 1969.
Claimant’s position
The Claimant has been employed by the Company since 31stAugust 2007. The Claimant contends that his initial contract of employment entitled him to be paid for forty hours' work including on those weeks when he was allocated less than forty hours' work. The Claimant seeks payment of €2,632 in respect of hours which, although unworked, fell to be paid in line with the arrangements set out in his contract. The Claimant contended that the Company had not made sufficient efforts to assign hours to the Claimant. The Claimant also contended that he is entitled to payment in respect of a period of suspension in 2013.
Respondent’s position
The Company contends that the Claimant’s contract of employment entitled the Company to change the working hours of the Claimant at any time. The Company outlined to the Court the nature of the business undertaken and stated that the capacity to respond to the needs of Clients and the nature of contracts was an essential aspect of employment in the security industry. The Company also contended that it had made significant efforts to make hours available to the claimant. The Company stated that the Claimant had received the payment sought in respect of his period of suspension in 2013.
Recommendation
The Court recommends that the parties should engage over a period of six weeks from the date of this Recommendation with a view to securing agreement on the change in the Claimant’s working hours. In the event that the parties cannot reach agreement the Court will, if requested, make a definitive Recommendation at that time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CO'R______________________
7th December, 2015Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.