ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004371

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/11/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984, and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000] 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).

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The Claimant received a verbal warning to his record which would remain active until 30 June 2016. The Claimant believes that he should not have received this warning on the grounds that he was assured by HR that everything would remain the same after his relocation from Robinhood to the Blanchardstown site. Therefore, the warning should be removed from his file.

The relocation took place in August 2015. Historically holidays for the Christmas period in Robinhood as a complete close down. This is not the case in Blanchardtown. The Claimant believes the approach taken by the Respondent did not reflect the assurances given prior to his relocation. He was advised by them that failure to work the new shift patterns would activate the disciplinary process.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Claimant’s contract states;

You will be required to be completely flexible in this position and must be prepared to undertake such other duties as may be assigned to you by the company from time to time.

The Claimant transferred with 15 other staff. All transferred on the same conditions after collective and individual consultation. While there was no requirement to work public holidays in Robibhood there is in Blanchardstown.

The warning received by the Claimant has been removed from his file as it has expired.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Decision:

I have considered the submissions made by the parties. There seems to have been a genuine misunderstanding between the parties. However, the facts remain that the Claimant transferred over to Blanchardstown on the same conditions as his work colleagues following consultation. He was treated no differently as them. The requirements in Blanchardstown are different from Robinhood. His contract requires him to be flexible with the new arrangements.   I note the warning has been removed from his file. I would advise both parties to move on from the situation

I do not find the claim well founded.

Dated:   14^th March 2017