Rene Cusack Ltd (Represented by Leahy & Partners Solicitors) v A Worker (Represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 24 March 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 3 JIEC 2401
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DECISION NO. LCR21700 ADJ-00006255 CA-00008534-001
• Date: 24 March 2018
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/17/339

DECISION NO. LCR21700

ADJ-00006255 CA-00008534-001

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

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00006255 CA-00008534-001

BACKGROUND:

2 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 waspaid for time he did not have work to due to their unique agreement regarding completion of duties.

3 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:

4 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.

5 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.

6 Management stated that due to the loss of a major customer and the necessity to reduce costs, the Appellant's pattern...