ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012248
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Supervisor | A Public Authority |
Representatives | SIPTU |
|
Complaint:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00016275-001 | 12/12/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/03/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant is claiming the payment of a two hours’ overtime payment arrangement which was enjoyed by his predecessor. He was advised by the predecessor to continue to return claims for payment on the same basis as he had. This involved recording two hour unworked hours as had been done by his predecessor under the terms of the 2011 agreement. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The arrangement to which the complainant refers arose from the settlement of a change in working arrangements made in 2011 and which applied only to those employees adversely affected at the time. The complainant was appointed to the position he now holds only in 2016 and has no claim to the benefits of that agreement. The complainant is entitled to work only a normal working week and does in fact do so. He does not accrue any entitlement to an extra payment. The claim is a cost increasing one which is not allowable under the applicable national pay agreements, and it also has implications for other employees of the respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The nub of this problem appears to be that on taking over the position the complainant was advised by his predecessor to continue to submit claims for payment as he (the predecessor) had done. However, the predecessor was covered by the terms of the 2011 settlement which were personal to him (and some co-workers) and which did not pass to any person employed in the area after that point, because they had not been asked to change their working arrangements. Had the complainant actually worked additional hours there may have arisen an equitable entitlement to some form of compensation, but he did not. His working week was the normal working week. Therefore, his claim does not succeed. |
Recommendation;
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
For the reasons set out above complaint CA-00016275-001 does not succeed and it is dismissed. |
Dated: 3rd July, 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady