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-00005764-001

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 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.

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 .