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-00005763-001

11/07/2016

The claimant and his 2 colleagues outlined their grievance   as follows:

“ following the company’s decision to alter the   longstanding store closure times from 1.00a.m. to 11p.m. and subsequent   re-rostering of my shift times   effectively impacting on my earnings and work/life balance arrangements, I   unsuccessfully exercised the grievance process for same. As this process is   now completed and today I am still not satisfied with my current workplace   situation I am referring the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission.

The claimant is a Security Officer with the respondent since 2005 – he works   45 hours per week ; his basic pay is €700.65 amounting to €15.57 /hour. The claimant initially worked 8.p.m.-6.00a.m.   but when the 24 hour opening was curtailed , the claimant’s night   shift contract was bought out and replaced with a new contract in 2008.It was   submitted that the claimant was advised by the t hen Personnel Manager at the   outlet , at the time that his shift   pattern would now be 3.00p.m.-1.00a.m.The claimant has since worked this   shift pattern with minor exceptions when he is providing cover. It was submitted   that the claimant’s colleagues witnessed the exchange with the Personnel   Manager confirming the   3.00p.m.-1.00a.m. shift .

The claimant is now working under protest from 1.15p.m.to   11.15p.m.

When the claimant’s became aware of the respondent’s plans   regarding earlier closure at 11.00p.m., the claimants invoked the company   grievance procedure. In addition to the obvious financial loss, the claimants   were aggrieved wit the impact of the new arrangements on their family   commitments. The union chronicled the processing of the claimants   grievances which ultimately were not   upheld.

It was submitted that the dispute should be viewed in an   industrial relations context - the   claimants were afforded regular and consistent working patterns for a   prolonged period and the claimants structured their work/life balance and   family commitments around them. It was submitted that the arrangements had   become a custom and practise and were   now being significantly disrupted.

It was submitted that the claimant was incurring a loss of   13.125hours pay/week. It was submitted that if a reversion to their previous   work pattern cannot be conceded , the claimants should be compensated for the   financial loss accruing – 1.5 times the annual loss.

The claimant and his 2 colleagues outlined their grievance   as follows:

“ following the company’s decision to alter the   longstanding store closure times from 1.00a.m. to 11p.m. and subsequent   re-rostering of my shift times   effectively impact ing on my earnings and work/life balance arrangements, I   unsuccessfully exercised the grievance process for same. As this process is   now completed and today I am still not satisfied with my current workplace   situation I am referring the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission”.

In December 2015, the respondent decided to reduce trading   hours in 87 of their stores following a business review. The hours that   changed were predominantly early morning (6.00am-8.00a.m.) and late at night   (10p.m.-1.a.m.)In the instant case, the   late night trading hours were   amended from 1.00a.m. to 11p.m.

The 3 complainants have fully flexible day contracts. The core contract for the claimants is between 7.00a.m.-11.00p.m.Hours worked   between the hours of 11.00p.m. and 8.00a.m. attract a premium of time and a   half. Premiums are not guaranteed as the hours of work can vary. The respondent set out a chronology of the   collective agreements reached with the respondent with respect to flexibility   and fluctuation in hours. It was emphasised that the claimants had not   incurred a reduction in hours –they no longer receive the unsocial hour   premium that colleagues receive if   they work during the unsocial hour window of 11.00p.m.-8.00a.m.It was   submitted that when the claimants signed up to their contract with the   respondent they were fully aware that their hours can vary and that they were   entitled to a premium only if they worked unsocial hours. It was contended   that the company do not accept that the claimants incurred any loss as the   premium hours are not guaranteed.

It was submitted that the nature of the company’s business   was such that fully flexible contracts were required so that the company can   respond to business imperatives. It was asserted that the company were not in   breach of any contractual obligations to the claimants. It was submitted that   concession of the claim would have significant knock on implications for   other stores where opening hours were altered. It was further maintained that   concession of the claim would undermine existing collective agreements with   Mandate .