ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00004367
Complaint(s):
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-00005765-001 | 11/07/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/01/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Location of Hearing: WRC Hearing Room Sligo
Clarification was sought from the respondent in relation to their estimate of loss incurred by the claimant – this was received on the 14th.March 2017.It was submitted that only one claimant incurred a loss and that “ the company did everything in its power to minimise the impact of the changes. The union confirmed on the 2nd.May 2017 that they were not in a position to contest the respondent’s figures.
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] 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 Complainant’s Case:
The claimant and her 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 was employed by the respondent as a General Sales Assistant on the 24th.Nov.2006 – when she commenced working she worked the hours 8.00p.m. – 1.00a.m. and continued to work these hours with minor alterations until they were unilaterally changed by the respondent. The claimant is now working under protest from 6.15p.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 13.75hours 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. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The claimant and her 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 .
|
Recommendation
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective submission of the parties.The respondent in their follow up submission post hearing which was received on the 15thMarch 2017 estimated that the claimant had incurred no loss arising from the changes and submitted that her income had increased by €686 during 2016 “ as the company had done everything in its power to minimise the impact of the changes”..
While I acknowledge the arguments advanced by the union with respect to the impact of the changes on the claimants’ work life balance , I am obliged to balance this with the argument from the respondent regarding the contractual provisions for same.it is clear from the documentation presented that the claimant’s contract allows for the changes imposed by the respondent. In the circumstances and given that the union has been unable to dispute the fact that the claimant’s income increased in 2016 owing to the respondent’s efforts to mitigate her loss, I find against the claimant and do not uphold her complaint.
Dated: 17th May 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea