Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Charity Foundation

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-00011135-001

04/05/2017

The Complainant’s hours were cut without consultation or agreement.

The Complainant is a Night Supervisor at a hostel run by the Respondent. She commenced employment on 19^th April 2010 and for over five years was employed as a Night Supervisor looking after a hostel.   She worked around 42.5 hours per week up to August 2015. The Respondent then decided to allocate the hours / overnight to a resident. This led to a reduction in hours for the Complainant to 27.5 hours per week. Since that time, the Complainant’s representative had sought to have the situation resolved through the WRC conciliation process. The situation could not be resolved and in May 2017, the Respondent wrote to the WRC rejecting the offer of conciliation.     This left the Complainant and her representative no choice but to refer the matter under the Industrial Relations Act.   The Complainant’s hours were returned to her earlier in 2017.   However, it is submitted that this may be only a temporary situation. The Respondent’s claim that the hours were cut due to financial reasons is rejected as the Company’s financial report shows this is unlikely to be the case.     The Complainant has suffered a significant financial loss and it is submitted that she should be compensated for this and the fact that the Respondent will not engage with the Complainant’s union representative to discuss her situation.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Complainant worked a 42.5 hour week until August 2015 when the Respondent changed her work hours without agreement or consultation. This resulted in a significant reduction in her earnings.   I note that recently her hours were restored.   However, the situation going forward is not clear.   It is recognised that sometimes it is necessary for an employer to alter an employee’s hours or working situation, but good employment practice would dictate that this should be discussed with the employee or the employee’s representative.     In this case, I recommend that the Respondent engage with the Complainant’s union representative to discuss the future plans regarding night cover.   I also recommend that the Complainant be compensated in the sum of €4,000 for a percentage of lost earnings.