FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : RENE CUSACK LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY LEAHY & PARTNERS SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00006255 CA-00008534-001
BACKGROUND:
2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Decision. On the 13 October 2017 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Decision:-
- ...the Complainant did not prove at the Hearing that the overtime he worked was regular and rostered and therefore his loss of income claim is not justified from an Industrial Relations perspective and i see no rationale to recommend compensation in this instance, based on the facts presented. This recommendation is also arrived at as the Complainant and the Respondent both agreed that the Complainant sometimes was paid for time he did not have work to due to their unique agreement regarding completion of duties.
The Employee appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Decision to the Labour Court on the 14 November 2017 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court is an appeal by a Van Driver against an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation ADJ00006255. The Union on behalf of the Appellant claimed compensation for loss of earnings due to a change to his delivery routes. The Adjudication Officer found against his claim on the basis that the loss did not relate to hours which were regular and rostered.
The Union stated that the Appellant was employed by the Company in 2004. He was requested in 2011 to change his roster from Monday to Friday to Tuesday to Saturday, which he duly did. He worked a regular route covering Cork, North Tipperary and Limerick areas. The Union contended that the Appellant worked regular and rostered overtime in the period from 2011 until September 2016 in order to meet the needs of the employer’s business. At that time in 2016, the Cork route was outsourced and his delivery route changed with a consequential loss of earnings. He estimated the average loss to be approximately €100 per week.
Management stated that due to the loss of a major customer and the necessity to reduce costs, the Appellant’s pattern of work was adjusted to reflect the new business situation. It submitted that the Appellant’s overtime was always variable.
The core issue for consideration is whether the overtime in issue was regular and rostered thus attracting compensation arising from its discontinuation. While it is accepted that the overtime in issue was regular there is a disagreement between the parties on whether or not is was rostered or contractual.
Having examined the payslips furnished to the Court for the period from April 2016 until mid-July 2016, the Court notes that the overtime earned varied from week to week; there was no regular pattern to the overtime worked and the Court is not satisfied that it was contractual in nature. In such circumstances the Court is of the view that the Company should not be liable to pay compensation for any loss suffered by its discontinuance.
In these circumstances the Court upholds the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation. Accordingly, the Appellant's appeal is disallowed.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
JD______________________
24 March 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.