Case Number: ADJ-00024907. Workplace Relations Commission.

• Docket Number: ADJ-00024907
• Hearing Date: 14 January 2020
• Date: 01 May 2020
• Year: 2020
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Conjoined with ADJ-00024905, ADJ-00024905 and ADJ-00024906

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00024907

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Member of Ground Staff	An Airline

Representatives Deirdre Canty, SIPTU Rachel Barry, BL instructed by Arthur Cox

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18A of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00031699-001	17/10/2019

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/01/2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 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.

Background:

This case surrounds a claim for a banded hours contract on behalf of a Member of Ground staff, represented by Deirdre Canty, SIPTU. The complainant has taken issue with the Band F offered and contends that she ought to have been offered a Band G. The Respondent represented by, Rachel Barry BL disputed the claim and submitted while prefaced by an error in computation, the offer of Banded Hours contract F was an accurate reflection of the average hours worked over the preceding year by the complainant. Both parties made extensive written and oral submissions in support of their respective positions

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Union in this case, SIPTU opened a claim on behalf of the complainant, a member of Ground Staff from October,2007. This claim is conjoined with three other cases detailed at the headline of this decision. The Union outlined that the complainant had a contract of employment for 20 hours, however, she was usually rostered more than this. The Union contended that the complainant had been placed on the incorrect banded hours contract and sought that she be placed on the appropriate Band of hours as per section 18 A of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. The Union submitted a brief background that it had pursued full time hours for the grouping in which the complainant worked for several years. The members had an expectation that the new “banded hours legislation” would finally address this inequity for the staff and the complainant in this case. Background of the case: The complainant is employed as Check In staff since 27 April 2015. A contract of employment was exhibited by the respondent. On March 21, 2019, the complainant applied to be placed on a new contract to match her hours worked under the new Miscellaneous Provisions Act. “I would also appreciate if it could be noted that upon returning from Maternity Leave in August 2017, I have been taking one parental leave day a week. This runs out in July 2019 and I will be returning to work 5 days per week.” The Complainant was first notified of being placed on Band H on 16 April 2019, effective from 18 April 2019 On 1 May 2019, the respondent confirmed that an error had occurred through the “double counting of overtime” and notified that the complainant would be placed in Band F (average working week of between 26 and 31 hrs, exclusive of all breaks), with effect from 18 April 2019. A letter to this effect issued on the same day. The Union submitted that the respondent had not included the hours of full annual leave entitlement in the base numbers relied in deciding the appropriate banding. This resulted in a false and lower calculation of average hours for the Banded hours over the 12-month reference period. The Union contended that the calculations for annual leave should be calculated on actual hours worked instead of the contracted hours as this would provide a true calculation for the reference period informing the Banded Hours and would result in the requested elevation to the higher band of G sought. The Union exhibited pay slips and computerised annual leave records and conformed that she had availed of parental leave during the Referencing period. The Union proceeded to argue that the provisions of section 19 of the Act confirm the way the calculation of annual leave is to be applied. Section 20(2)(b) sets down that annual leave shall be paid at the normal weekly rate. Moving on to Section 16 of the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2018 addresses” banded hours” and amends the Organisation of Working Time Act The Union cited all sections and emphasised: (4) the band of weekly working hours on which the employee is entitled to be placed shall be determined by the employer on the basis of the average number of hours worked by that employee per week during the reference period The Union contended that the annual leave calculations in the complainant case were incorrectly recorded which in turn caused the calculation for the reference period to be flawed. The Union, on behalf of the complainant contended that the respondent entered the 20 hours per week and not the average hours worked. The complainant sought an order to place her on the correct band of G.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent runs an Airline and operates a number of bases in the country. The Respondent was on notice of the conjoined claims referred to above and has responded in the case of the instant case by rejecting the Union...