ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00004551

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/06/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 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).

Background

The claimant commenced employment with the respondent on the 7th November 2011 in the role of Outbound Guide servicing the Hungarian market. The claimant was issued with an addendum to her contract of employment on the 27th February 2012 confirming a role change to RCI Outbound Guide. This was the position that the claimant was hired originally for, once the training period of 4 weeks and transition bay period of 8 weeks were completed, she was considered fully trained and a salary uplift applied. The claimant also received further training on another RCI system during this time, and this was considered to be a significant change and learning curve in respect of the claimants role. The claimant was issued with another addendum to her contract of employment on the 14th September 2012 confirming her role was changing from RCI Outbound Guide to RCI Flex Guide.

In early 2016, arising from a management review of the Guide role across its international operations, it was identified that there was an ever increasing requirement for Guides to engage in a larger percentage of customer service and query/complaint resolution work, via phone and e-mail.

The respondent submitted that the claimant did not raise any concerns or issues with them about the new role until a few days before the role was to go live. The respondent also submitted that the claimant was given training in relation to the new role and also had attended meetings in relation to same in the months prior to the new role going live. When the claimant did raise issues, the respondent arranged meetings with the claimant to address these concerns and as far as the respondent was aware these meetings ended successfully and had allayed any fears that the claimant had in relation to the new role as she signed and returned the new addendum to her contract of employment.

The new role went live on the 4th July 2016 and the claimant, together with the rest of the German and Hungarian teams commenced in that role. Between 4th July 2016 and 18th July 2016 there were no further communications from the claimant regarding any issues with the new role.

Subsequently the respondents head office, issued an instruction that the current role title was not in keeping with the wider organisation, where it no longer contained the word "Guide". The management Team reviewed the role title and it was agreed that where customer service would only amount to 3 hours per week of the new role, that "RCI Guide" was a more accurate description of the role and subsequently issue fresh addendums to contracts of the affected employees and also issue a profile of the role as requested by some employees.

The claimant was issued with this fresh addendum on the 11th July 2016. It was made clear at that time that the addendum reflected only a change in title and the role remained the same.

The claimant voiced her dissatisfaction with this new addendum on the 18th July 2016 and also alleged that during a meeting on the 1st July 2016 she was advised to, "sign or resign".

A subsequent meeting was arranged and took place on 19th July 2016. The respondent submitted that this meeting went very well. The respondent further submitted that the claimant had outlined her concerns and sought clarity on her options and felt that under the new role her workload had increased to the point of making her targets unattainable. It was demonstrated during that meeting that the claimants statistics for the past 2 weeks had actually improved from her previous role and that she was meeting her targets.

The claimant also felt that it was unfair that other colleagues had received a pay increase for that role and she had not. It was explained to the claimant that she was already on the upper end of the scale for that role.

On the 20th July 2016 the claimant e-mailed the respondent stating she would not be accepting the new role and she would not be resigning. The claimant also requested that further options be outlined to her, other than those outlined in the meeting, where her issue were not informal.

On the 21st July 2016 the respondent held a further meeting with the claimant in order to resolver her concerns with the modifications to her role. The respondent provided production statistics to the claimant which set out the overall time she had been requested to perform the QA tasks( the revised part of the new role). Furthermore the claimant was reaching her target and received a higher incentive payment for the period she spent in the revised role than she did the previous month.

On the 25th July 2016 the claimant emailed the respondent setting out that she felt she was left with no option but to resign and requested that the email be accepted as her formal resignation.

In light of the seriousness of the contents of the email dated 25th July 2016, the respondent arranged a meeting with the claimant on 29th July 2016 and again reiterated that they would continue to support the claimant if she remained in employment and not to make any rash decisions with regard to her resignation. The respondent submitted that the claimant was adamant to continue with her resignation.

The claimants last working day was 29th July 2016 with her resignation taking effect from 17th August 2016.

The respondent further submitted that of the 77 employees impacted by the role change only the claimant refused to accept the changes. The respondent also produced evidence to say that the QA aspect of the revised role now only accounts for less than 1 hour a week of a Guides time.

It was submitted on behalf of the claimant that while she was away taking part in the respondents Global Exchange Programme, a number of "Town Hall" meetings took place in relation to the proposed role changes. When the claimant received an addendum to her contract of employment dated 11th July 2016 the claimant emailed the respondent expressing her dissatisfaction with the new role and further submitted that at a subsequent meeting she was told to "sign or resign". Subsequent meetings failed to resolve the issue and the claimant felt that the manner in which the respondent dealt with her grievance was unhelpful, aggressive and overtly defensive. The claimant felt that due to a clause in her contract of employment allowing the respondent to make changes to her terms and conditions that the respondent made substantial and unilateral changes to her contract without her express consent. The claimant also felt that she should have received a salary uplift in-line with her colleagues for a change in roles.

It was further submitted that by the actions of the respondent in this regard in changing so substantially the claimants terms and conditions of employment amount to a redundancy.

Findings:

Both parties made written and verbal submissions at the hearings

I find that whether the claimant expressed a desire to return to Hungary or not, has no bearing on the issue before me.

This issue before me is whether or not the respondent changed the terms and conditions of the claimants employment so substantially and unreasonably and to the detriment of the claimant that it created a situation tantamount to redundancy.

In examining the evidence as presented to me at the hearing I have made the following findings.

I find that the addendum issued on the 20th June 2016 was in relation to the change in roles.

I find the claimant was provided with the support required to transition to this new role.

I find the claimant did not object to this addendum until 1st July 2016 and subsequently agreed and signed this addendum. The circumstances surrounding her reason for signing this addendum remain a contentious issue.

I find the second addendum issued on 11th July 2016 was for the purpose of a change in job title and not job role.

I find the claimants contract of employment does contain a clause, "flexibility", and is defined therein.

I find the respondent has not changed the claimants contract of employment so substantially and unreasonable as to create a situation tantamount to redundancy.

.

Decision:

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

I cannot support the complaints complaint for redundancy and her request falls.

Dated:   17^th November 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Key Words: