ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005854

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/01/2017

Location of Hearing: WRC Hearing Room Sligo

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 Acts, Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 - 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).

Summary of Claimant’s Position

The claimant has been employed with the respondent since 1991 and is currently assigned as a General Operative/Planner. He is aggrieved at what is described as an imposed change in his working conditions which will have the effect of a significant reduction in his earnings.

He has submitted counter proposals which he contends address the respondent’s concerns and at the same time protect his earnings – but these have been rejected by the respondent.

Up until Jan.2017, the claimant worked on a shift rotation basis with a colleague but the new system has resulted in the planning duties being rotated between 3 operatives rather than 2.

It was submitted that the respondent proceeded with plans for implementing the change by training up 2 of the claimant’s colleagues – without engagement with the claimant; ultimately, the claimant lodged a grievance and a meeting took place with management on the 6^th.Sept. It emerged that the claimant’s opposite number was moving from his planning role to concentrate fully on supervisory duties – the claimant indicated that this need not affect him as he was happy to work with any new colleagues taking on planning duties; the claimant proposed that his shifts remain unaffected and the 2 additional Planning Operatives could cover the shift left vacant by the claimant’s colleague. Despite the objection of the union, the respondent proceeded with the revised roster on the 1^st.Jan2017.

The claimant was aggrieved with the failure to consult him, the failure to address his grievance in a timely manner and the failure to recognise the enormous financial loss arising from the change.

The respondent had rejected the claimant’s counterproposal on the basis of there being too great a gap in the time between shifts for the 2 new planners – the claimant’s proposal involved the claimant working every second week and the new planners working planning duties one week per month. It was submitted that it was illogical that a 3 week turnaround is the only workable option and that an additional week would pose such a difficulty.

Summary of Respondent’s Position

The respondent submitted that the changes were necessary for operational and health and safety reasons. It was submitted that originally a 3 person rota was in place in 1991; one member left the rota leaving the claimant and his opposite number. It was contended that in 2014, a crisis arose when the claimant and his colleague were off sick at the same time and no one else was trained on site to undertake planning duties. At the time, the plant manager had to step in. It was explained that planning was a highly technical role requiring serious attention to detail – this is in the context of a company providing medical device sterilisation. It was submitted the business requires sufficient cover to prevent any risk of unavailability of trained staff; the 3 man rota was a critical requirement; it was needed to ensure contingency for leave and illness; the existing 2 man system can involve a 53 hour working week; sharing the planning function between 3 ensures compliance with the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and the new system was a positive opportunity for other staff. It was submitted that this was purely an operational decision with no cost saving arising.

The respondent set out a chronology of the exchanges that took place with the claimant in relation to his grievance. It was submitted that the company did consider the claimant’s counter proposal but declined same on the basis of the technical nature of the planning function (as referred to in the foregoing paragraph) and concern about the claimant’s working hours.

Recommendation

I have reviewed the evidence and submissions of the parties and while I acknowledge the legitimacy of the claimant’s grievance, I find the respondent has put forward compelling, credible reasons for the rota change and accordingly I recommend against the claimant’s counter proposal. I accept however that the claimant will incur a significant loss and in that regard, I recommend in full and final settlement of this dispute that the respondent make a compensatory payment to the claimant of 1.5 times his annual loss. Payment to be made within 42 days of the date of this recommendation.

Dated:   6^th April 2017