ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001732
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 |
CA-00002331-001 |
02/02/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/03/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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).Attendance at Hearing:
Background
The claimant was employed by the respondent in 1991 as a Sales Assistant. During his employment with the respondent he has held various managerial roles, at sites in Dublin, Galway and Cork. The claimant was seconded to the Blackpool store from Turners Cross in 2014 as Assistant manager to cover maternity leave. In 2015 the respondent made the necessary business decision to restructure its management teams in all of its stores nationwide. This involved the removal of the Assistant Manager Grade and its replacement with team leader grades. Stores would have a Manager, Deputy Manager with Team leaders reporting in same. Suitably qualified candidates were invited for the deputy Manager positions. The claimant chose not to do so. Part of the exercise nationally was the redeployment of new team leaders to balance the experience levels in the stores. The claimant as part of this decision was transferred to the respondents Blackpool store from Turners Cross. The claimant raised a grievance regarding this move. The basis for his grievance was that he felt he was treated unfairly in regard to this situation and has not received the same equality as my fellow Team leaders in other named locations. The claimant grievance and appeal were dealt with in accordance with the respondents procedures. The respondent submits that the contract of employment demands flexibility in regard to several factors including location of employment. The claimant stated that he had cooperated fully with the respondent at all times and this cooperation should now be recognised and taken into account in this situation.