ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001312
Dispute for Resolution:
Complaint/Dispute Reference No.
Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/05/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The complainant submits that due to changes in her work arrangements, she will lose one Sunday per month at Double Time, (16 hours pay) and that she is entitled to compensation. Her employment was split between two locations until the establishment of TUSLA when her location was changed without her agreement in April 2014. Her union official tried a number of times to have compensation applied under the Croke Park/Haddington Road Agreements, but the management has not agreed to the reference period for calculation of loss. The complainant’s position is that the reference periods for comparison should be the 12 months April 2013 to April 2014 (as prior to the move) and April 2014 to April 2015 (as post move).
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The complainant was assigned between two units (LS and LN Services). In March 2013, another unit(A) closed and staff were reassigned to LN Services. As part of the negotiations with staff unions it was agreed in March 2013 that staff who suffered a loss of earnings as a result of the change would be compensated on the basis of 1.5 times the actual loss. The level of loss would be established in each case by comparing earnings in a full twelve month period in which the new arrangements were operating with a corresponding period in which the current system operated. The level of loss was established by comparing the premium earned in the twelve months April 2012 to April 2013 with premium earned in April 2013 to April 2014. The calculation in respect of the complainant was somewhat different to her colleagues as she was on certified sick leave from 10th December 2013 to 14th August 2014. Her earnings were “grossed up” to reflect the full year. However the comparison of premium earned in the reference years showed that she did not suffer any loss of earnings. It is contended that the complainant did not qualify for compensation for a number of reasons. The compensation paid to staff moving from the closed unit (A) was as a direct result of the reassignment. The complainant was given the opportunity to stay in the other unit (LS) but did not reply to management’s requests for her to decide. Management then had no alternative but to reassign her. She was treated no differently than her colleagues in LN whose roster changed as a result of reassignment.
I note the fact that management gave every opportunity to the complainant to choose which location in she wished to work. However, once the complainant was relocated which in this instance was April 2014, the terms of the Public Service Agreement should have applied. In this case, comparison twelve month periods are April 2013 to April 2014 and April 2014 to April 2015.
I recommend that the respondent looks again at these comparison periods and apply the formula of 1.5 times the loss if there is any loss established.
Dated: 26th July 2016