ADJUDICATION OFFICER’S DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002181
Complaint 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, 1969
CA-00002983-001
02/03/2016
Venue: The Ardboyne Hotel, Navan, Co. Meath.
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/06/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Walsh
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015and under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 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.
Attendance at Hearing:
By
Complainant
Respondent
Complainant’s Submission:
The following is a summary of the Complainant’s submission.
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in 2007 as a GHS Driver. He worked a three day week, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. This work pattern was maintained until the 25th of February 2011 with the exception of working additional Sundays.
On the 25th of February 2011, the Complainant with other drivers were advised by the Respondent that their working arrangements would change from a 3 day week due to the expansion of the business and that they had three options to choose from in relation to their working week.
Option 1 – Change hours to suit new roster.
Option 2 – Reduce your hours to fit into new rostered hours.
Option 3 – Change to a role within the store or transfer to another store when a vacancy arises.
After a number of meetings with the Respondent, the Complainant agreed to sign up for Option 2 on the basis that he would now work a four day week- Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, with the fourth day alternating between Thursday and Saturday. He would work 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on those four days.
In October 2015, the Complainant was advised along with other drivers that they would be required to make themselves available to work until 11:00 p.m. The Complainant pointed out to the Respondent that this was in breach of an agreement reached between to himself and the company in regards to Option 2. The company pointed out that they were not in breach of the agreement and they insisted that he fulfil the requirement sought by them. The Complainant worked under protest and lodged a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 2nd of March 2016.
Respondent’s Submission:
In 2011, on foot of increasing demands from ‘dot com’, a large customer of the Respondent, the delivery times of the drivers was changed from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The drivers were offered options in relation to the new arrangements. The Complainant opted for Option 2 which stated;
‘If there are elements of the new roster that does not suit your personal needs, we will work with you to roster you over certain days/hours where possible. This may mean a voluntary drop in the number of hours you currently work. The new roster is outlined as a mix of the following shifts:
9:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. and 7:00p.m. - 11:00 p.m. Monday to Friday.
9:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. Saturdays
No changes to rosters on Sunday
As the Complainant chose Option 2, he was accommodated by not rostering him to work Mondays. It was made clear to the Complainant at the time, that this was not an indefinite arrangement but one that was put in place to help facilitate his family circumstances. It was clearly stated that this arrangement was for a limited period of time and not finite in nature. The Complainant received a letter to this effect on the 25th of February 2011.
In July 2015, as the Respondent had accommodated the Complainant for a long period of time, it was now required him to work the late shift but as a compromise allowed him to continue to have Mondays off for a further period of time. It was explained to the Complainant that this agreement was finite in nature and should the business require him to work the late shift and Mondays that this would be effected. The needs of the business changed due to sales increases and as a result, it moved from a two van operation to a three van operation. The other two drivers accepted this.
The Respondent has acted in Compliance with the Complainant’s contract. The Complainant signed a flexible contract in 2007 and again in 2011 which allows the Respondent to alter the days he works and the time he works once he works between 30 and 35 hours per week. It cannot be argued that there has been a breach in his terms and conditions of employment. On introducing the changes in 2011, the Respondent accommodated the Complainant in relation to the hours he worked as he was having childminding issues. It was made clear to him at the time that the arrangements were temporary in nature. The business now requires flexibility as per the Complainant’s contract of employment. The Respondent has acted fairly with the Complainant allowing him to remain work off Mondays for a further period of time. However due to the increased need for drivers, it is not viable for the business to exempt the Complainant from the night-shift. This would create inflexibility and unfairness within the division.
Findings:
The Complainant’s contracts of employment do allow for flexibility in relation to working hours and shift arrangements. The Respondent has accommodated the Complainant in relation to his personal situation at home for a significant period of time. The Complainant was aware that this accommodation was temporary in nature and could be changed if the business needs of the organisation required it. The Respondent now finds that as the business had increased significantly, drivers are required to work different arrangements to meet the business need. These arrangements are in line with the contracts of employment signed by the drivers including the Complainant.
Decision:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Complaint is not well founded and therefore fails.
The Complainant’s contracts of employment allow for the flexibilities that the Respondent now seeks because of a significant increase in business needs.
Dated: 20th September 2016