BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> McGreevy v Royal Mail Group Plc [2006] NIIT 1168_06 (28 November 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2006/1168_06.html Cite as: [2006] NIIT 1168_6, [2006] NIIT 1168_06 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CASE REF: 1168/06
CLAIMANT: SCOTT JAMES McGREEVY
RESPONDENT: ROYAL MAIL GROUP PLC
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that:-
The claim is dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr Travers
Panel Members: Ms Armstrong
Mr McKenna
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and was not represented
The respondent was represented by Mr Dunlop, Barrister-at-Law instructed by Napier & Sons, Solicitors
REASONS
ISSUES
1. This claim relates to an allegation of a series of unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. The core issue for the tribunal is to ascertain the level of the claimant's contractual entitlement to pay during the relevant period. The claimant states that he was contractually entitled to be paid on the basis of the wages for a 32.25 hour week, rather than the wages for a 25 hour week as contended by the respondent.
FACTS
2. The facts set out below represent the conclusions of the tribunal on the balance of probabilities, having considered all the evidence, information and submissions placed before it. The information considered has included the contents of a file helpfully prepared by the claimant and handed in to the tribunal.
3. At all relevant times the claimant was an employee of the respondent based at the main sorting office in Belfast.
4. Early in 2006, as a result of a business re-organisation, all the employees who worked from the main sorting office were required to participate in what was described as a "duty re-sign".
5. The role performed by an employee of the respondent is known within the organisation as a "duty". There is a wide range of duties and each has it's own individual characteristics, both as to the nature of the job and as to the timing and length of the working day. Some duties are full-time posts and some are part-time posts. The number of hours in the working week of a part-time employee varies from duty to duty, and their pay is tied to the number of hours worked.
6. The duty re-sign took place pursuant to an agreement reached between management and the Communication Workers Union. The respondent displayed a total of 370 duties on it's notice boards and staff were required to place their signature next to the duty for which they wished to apply.
7. The tribunal is satisfied that the notices setting out the duties available on the re-sign contained a heading to the effect that, "if you require more detail and information on the duties please speak to your Manager and CWU Rep".
8. The tribunal finds that the claimant was aware that the advertised duties varied as to their length and content. He was also aware that both the management and the union representative would be able to assist him in ascertaining the content and duration of any duty if he was in doubt.
9. Prior to the duty re-sign the claimant's working hours were 32.5 per week. This was considered a part-time post. The new duty he signed for was of only 25 hours duration per week. The claimant told the tribunal that he did not realise that the length of the duty was 25 hours until the first week he worked it. The claimant was unhappy because the reduced working hours meant a reduction of his income.
10. The claimant stated that he had made a mistake by not doing enough groundwork prior to signing for the duty. He also suggested that the respondent was at fault by not advertising the content of each duty.
11. The claimant told the tribunal that he had chosen not to contact his union representative because of the pressure that they were under. He said, "I done them a favour by not troubling them".
12. Sadly, the claimant has recently had to retire on medical grounds. His claim covers the period prior to his retirement when he was working for 25 hours per week.
LAW
13. Under Part IV of The Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, an employee has a right not to suffer unauthorised deductions of wages.
14. In order to determine whether or not the claimant has suffered an unauthorised deduction of wages, the tribunal must first ascertain his contractual rate of pay at the relevant time.
CONCLUSION
15. The tribunal is satisfied that there has been no unauthorised deduction of wages.
16. The duty re-sign procedure was the result of negotiation between the respondent and the Communication Workers Union. It was a major event in the working life of the claimant and his colleagues. It was clear to all employees, including the claimant, that not all duties were of the same content or duration.
17. Every worker had an opportunity to check the content of the duty prior to signing for it. The claimant chose not to do so.
18. By re-signing for a duty of 25 hours duration, the claimant agreed to a variation of the terms of his contract of employment. His contractual hours of employment reduced from 32.5 hours to 25 hours. Since the claimant's pay was linked to the number of hours worked, the respondent was entitled to pay him on the basis of a 25 hour week.
19. In all the circumstances, the claim is dismissed.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 28th November 2006 at Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
