EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
EMPLOYER – appellant PW516/2011
V
EMPLOYEE – respondent
re
against the decision (ref: r-110420-pw11/RG) of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
EMPLOYEE V
EMPLOYER
under
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms E. Coughlan
Members: Mr D. Peakin
Ms E. Brezina
heard this appeal at Dublin on 11th July 2013
Representation:
_______________
Appellant(s):
Respondent(s):
This case came before the Tribunal by way of an employer appealing the decision of a Rights Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, ref: r-110420-pw11/RG .
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Summary of Respondent’s (Employee) Case:
The respondent (employee) gave evidence. She was employed by the appellant company to work as a telephonist for one of its client companies. She had worked at the client premises for 14 years when in December 2010 a company representative informed her that her hours would be cut from 40 to 20 hours per week. The respondent refused this reduction and referred them to her contract of employment which specified 40 hours per week.
A further meeting was held in February 2011. The same company representative offered the respondent 32 hours in her current role and 8 hours (on Fridays) in the badging office. The respondent refused as she wished to follow the collective dispute resolution and did not want to lose her role as telephonist. The respondent’s trade union were in negotiations with the appellant company over the changes at the LRC. The reduction in hours also affected mail room staff and staff on a particular gate onsite.
On 5th April 2011 the respondent received a copy of the company’s grievance procedure. Point 10 of this procedure stated that “both sides will observe the status quo pending exhaustion of the procedure (unless otherwise mutually agreed).”
On Friday 8th April 2011 the respondent presented for work at the switchboard onsite. A company representative came to the office that morning and informed her that she would not be paid if she stayed at the switchboard. He said she could go to training for the badging section, take annual leave or go home. The respondent stayed at the switchboard and manned the phones for the day. She contended that the other part-time telephonist went home sick that day. The respondent continued to present for work at the switchboard on Fridays and was not paid for three of these days (8th April 2011, 15th April 2011 & 27th April 2011).
A shop steward gave evidence that he was present at the switch on 8th April 2011 when she was told to report to badging. He said that the grievance procedure was in place and that the status quo should remain.
Summary of Appellant’s Case:
The director of security services gave evidence. The company involved was one of their most important clients. The client outsourced facilities management. The appellant company were then contracted to continue providing services in March 2010. The effect of these changes was that the facilities management company sought cost and staffing reductions including the reduction of the switchboard assignment from 80 hours to 40 hours per week. This equated to one fulltime member of staff compared to one fulltime and two part-time which had previously been the case. The appellant company was told to implement changes by January 2011, but they appealed this and were given until March 2011. The appellant company carried out an assessment of the switchboard traffic and this was put to the facilities management company who later agreed to reinstate the 80 hours.
After the respondent brought her contract to their attention, which stipulated 40 hours per week, the witness proposed 32 hours on the switchboard and 8 in badging. Four other employees were affected to accommodate the respondent, but they were happy to do it as he considered the respondent to be a valuable employee. The respondent rejected this offer.
Other employees worked the reduced hours pending the outcome of arbitration. The conciliation process was on-going and ultimately the arbitration process found that the company had been reasonable in its process. They would have borne the cost of the respondent’s extra days if the process had found against them. The respondent was instructed to go to the badging office on 8th April 2011 by a representative of the appellant company. She refused. They let her remain working on the switchboard as the alternatives were forcibly removing her or initiating the disciplinary process, neither of which were desirable.
Determination:
Having considered all the evidence adduced the Tribunal upholds the decision of the Rights Commissioner (ref: r-110420-pw11/RG) under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, and makes a like order that the appellant company pay the respondent €327.53.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)