ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001832
Dispute for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00002474-001 | 08/02/2016 |
At: Workplace Relations Commission, Haddington Road, Dublin 4.
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/04/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, 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.
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a General Operative from 5th November 2014 until the employment terminated on 15th September 2015. The Complainant referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission on 8th February 2016 in relation to a trade dispute concerning the payment of Shift Back money.
The Respondent was notified of the complaint by letter dated 11th February 2016 and informed that in accordance with Section 36 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 that if the Respondent was objecting to an Adjudication Officer hearing in relation to the complaint that they had to object within 21 days of the date of the letter. There was no objection received by the Workplace Relations Commission until 31st March 2016 where they also indicated they would not be attending the scheduled hearing. As the objection was received outside the 21 day time limit I proceeded to hear the complaint.
Summary of Complainant’s Position.
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in November 2014 as a General Operative. He worked a shift pattern and worked 7nights and six days a month. He believed he was not being paid the correct night shift rate. He queried this with the Respondent. He stated he was paid the correct shift rate of €3.44 an hour from September 2015 but the Respondent refused to pay him his back money. The Complainant contacted his Union SIPTU who wrote to the Respondent on 16th October 2015. A further letter was sent by SIPTU on 13th November 2015 with a response from the Respondent dated 16th November 2015.
The Complainant had raised another issue concerning the payment of a Sunday Premium. This was resolved with the Respondent paying the Complainant all the back money owed to him.
The Complainant is seeking payment of €3476.
The Respondent Company is a Security Company and the Security JLC covered terms and conditions in this industry until the High Court declared it was unconstitutional in 2011. The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent in November 2014, which is subsequent to the decision of the High Court.
A Security Employment Regulation Order came into effect from 1st October 2015 which is after the Complainant left the employment.
In light of my findings above I declare I do not have jurisdiction to award the Complainant either the terms of the JLC which has been declared unconstitutional since 2011 or the new ERO which came into effect from 1st October 2015.
Date 7th July 2016