ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001732
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Bus Company |
Representatives | Thomas O'connor National Bus and Rail Union |
|
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00001732 | 30/08/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Date of Hearing: 11/01/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
Background:
The Worker is a long standing driver for the Employer bus company. Over the period of June 2018 to January 2021 the Worker failed to follow the Employer’s process of cashing in their daily ticket sales and instead did so on a weekly basis. The Worker submits that this was the practice in his garage. The Employer submits that this erratic pay-in pattern led to a significant cash short in the summer of 2021, which was raised with the Worker. The Worker denied he owed the Employer any shortfall and sought further detail. Eventually he did agree to deductions from salary. The Worker argues that this was due to threat of disciplinary sanction. He raised the issue again in 2022 and again sought information and then the repayment of monies. This matter was listed for a hearing under the Industrial Relations Act and at the time the parties sought an adjournment for further local engagement as additional information had been provided. This failed to resolve matters. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker argues that he only agreed to the deduction of wages under threat of disciplinary sanction. He raised the issue again in 2022 and again sought information and then the repayment of monies. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer submits that they have provided copious information showing how there was a shortfall that the Worker was responsible for it. They acted appropriately in giving him an opportunity to pay it back rather than deal with the matter as a disciplinary issue. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The long title of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 Act (which this act relates to) begins that this is an act to make further and better provision for promoting harmonious relations between workers and their employers. While I understand the Worker may feel aggrieved at the outcome he agreed to in 2021, he did agree to it. I note the information provided by the Employer that the deductions were substantially justified. However, in all the circumstances I do not believe it would be in the interests of the aims of this act, i.e promoting harmonious relations between workers and their employers, for matters resolved by agreement to be reopened years later. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend the parties take no further action.
Dated: 24th of March 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|