Case Number: ADJ-00006255. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00006255
• Date: 05 October 2017
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A driver v A retailer

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006255

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Driver	A Retailer

Complaint(s):

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-00008534-001	01/12/2016
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00008534-002	01/12/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/08/2017

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Background:

The Complainant stated that he did not receive a statement of terms and conditions of employment within the prescribed period and that he was at a loss due to route changes and was claiming compensation as a result.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The case is in relation to unilateral changes to the working arrangements of the Complainant and the associated loss of earnings arising from same. Furthermore, the Complainant requested a copy of his Terms and Conditions of employment but was not issued with a copy of same. The Complainant has worked as a Driver/Delivering goods since February 2004. The Complainant has over 13 years’ service with a clean record to date. Originally the Complainant worked Monday to Friday delivering goods for the employer in the Munster region. Approximately, 6 years ago, in 2010/2011 The Complainant was asked by the Financial Manager to change his working week from Monday to Friday to Tuesday to Saturday. The incentive offered to The Complainant at that time was Saturday was delivering in the Limerick area only and would not consist of a full days’ work but the Complainant would be paid the full days’ pay at the basic rate of pay. The Complainant agreed to these changes and requested a copy of his Contract of Employment at that time. The Contract was never issued to The Complainant. The Complainant contends he was never paid the full days’ pay for the Saturday but as the overtime rate of pay was paid after 41.50 hours worked, The Complainant had worked more than these hours every week and therefore had earned overtime every week. The working week consisted of the following for The Complainant: Tuesday = Cork city and county (long day) Wednesday = Kerry Thursday = Cork city and county (long day) Friday = North Tipperary Saturday = Limerick city and surrounding areas. Then in September 2016, The Complainant was informed his delivery runs to Cork were being outsourced and his working week and areas of delivery would entirely change. These changes also brought about significant losses to The Complainant’s take home pay. The working week now consists of the following for The Complainant: Tuesday = Galway & Mayo Wednesday = Limerick City Thursday = Galway & Mayo Friday = Limerick City Saturday = Limerick city and surrounding areas. The Complainant contacted SIPTU and SIPTU wrote to the employer dated 28th September 2016 regarding the reduction of hours and the unilateral changes to The Complainant’s terms of employment due to the outsourcing of part of his work. SIPTU received a response from the employer’s legal advisor Mr Alec Gabbett from Leahy & Partners Solicitors dated 11th October 2016 following a telephone conversation the day before. A copy of a Statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment was enclosed with this correspondence SIPTU. The correspondence confirms Mr Gabbett was to seek instruction from the employer regarding the reduction in hours of work for The Complainant. However, there was no further correspondence from the employer or his legal advisor. The matter was referred to the WRC Adjudication Services in December 2016. We contend the employer has breached Sections 3 and 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. Section 3 is in relation to the Written statement of terms of employment. Section 7 (d) allows the Rights Commissioner to order the employer to pay to the employee compensation not exceeding 4 weeks remuneration in respect of a breach of this Act. Furthermore, the Contract of Employment issued to SIPTU regarding the terms and conditions of employment for the Complainant in October 2016, had not been issued to the Complainant...