Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Security Officer

A Security Company

Representatives

Hugh Hegarty SIPTU

Graham Bailey IBEC

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-00010440-001

27/03/2017

The worker has been employed by the employer since 20th July 1997 as a Security Officer. His gross weekly rate of pay is €651.90. The worker is in dispute with his employer in relation to an alleged reduction in his contractual hours and location of work and in relation to a redundancy situation that is alleged to have occurred in December 2011. The worker is seeking that he be returned to his contractual work location, that his hours of work be increased to previous levels and that he be paid compensation. The worker is also seeking that he be paid compensation for the non-payment of his redundancy entitlement.

The worker’s position is that he is a long standing loyal employee and began his employment with the employer in excess of 20 years ago. He contends that although he has a contractual entitlement to work on a specific site, he was asked in 2005 to work temporarily on a different site due to his experience. The worker contends that he was given an assurance and written confirmation by letter dated 3rd September 2005 from the Operations Manager that he would be returned to his previous location once work was completed on the temporary site. The worker contends that despite these assurances, he remained on the temporary site until 2010 and ultimately was not returned to his previous site. He contends that this has resulted in a loss of Sunday work and associated premium payments. The worker contends that he has suffered a loss of earnings of approximately €5944.32 and is seeking compensation in that amount.

The worker also contends that in December 2011 a redundancy situation arose which was site specific to where the worker was assigned at that time. The worker contends that he was not paid his redundancy entitlements and was in fact rehired two weeks later on a new contract. The worker contends his redundancy entitlement amounted to €17,952.00 and he is seeking compensation in that amount.

The worker also contends that his contractual hours of work were reduced in 2011 from 48 hours per week to 36 hours per week. The worker is seeking that he be returned to his 4 x 12 hour shifts at his contractual work location.

The employer refutes the worker’s claims. The employer’s position is that the worker was asked to work temporarily on another site in 2005 and remained on that site for in excess of five years. The employer contends that it was not in a position to return the worker to the site that he was contracted to work at due to the number of years that had passed and the operational difficulties that would have arisen in those circumstances.

The employer contends that the worker’s contract of employment stated the work location but the contract also provided for redeployment where necessary. The employers position is that it acted in line with the provisions of the contract and the prevailing business realties when reassigning the worker from the temporary site.

The employer also stated that the worker is working his contractual hours. The Company/Union Collective Agreement and the worker’s contract of employment state that the hours of work may vary depending on service requirements but that changes will implemented in accordance with agreed procedures. The employer stated that there is no guarantee of Sunday work and in those circumstances the worker’s claim for compensation is without merit.

In relation to the redundancy, the Respondent’s position is that as part of a grievance raised at local level the worker sought written clarification that the redundancy that allegedly took place in December 2011 was void and that his service was continuous with the employer since 20th July 1997. The employer contends that this was subsequently confirmed to the worker by letter dated 17th June 2017.

The employer contends that it has acted in good faith at all times in respect of the worker and the issues that he has raised. The employer has offered the worker alternative work options on many occasions and has recruited staff cover to facilitate the worker in having every second Saturday as a day off. Accordingly, the employer position is that the worker’s claims should fail.

In relation to this dispute I find as follows:

The worker is seeking that he be returned to his contractual 4x12 hour shifts at his contractual work location. The employer states that the worker is working his contractual shifts. The employer states that it is unable to return the worker to his preferred site for operational reasons.

On the basis of documentation submitted by the employer, I find that the worker is working his contractual shifts. I also find that the employer is entitled to assign the worker to different sites in line with the Company/Union Agreement and the worker’s contract of employment.

The worker submitted a letter dated 3rd September 2005 from the then Operations Manager confirming that he would be returned to his contractual work location following completion of the temporary assignment. On this issue I find that it may well have been the intention of management at the time to return the worker to his previous site location. However, given the number of years that have passed, I find it would be unreasonable and impractical to expect the employer to return the worker to the previous site and displace other employees who may have been working there for many years.

On the compensation sought by the worker, I accept the Respondent’s position that there is no automatic entitlement to Sunday work and therefore I do not consider it appropriate to award compensation in respect of hypothetical losses.

In relation to the Redundancy, I find that the redundancy did not take place and the worker was reinstated into his position and with no break in his service. On that basis I do not consider it appropriate to award compensation as sought by the worker.

Having taken into account the written and verbal submissions of both parties, I do not recommend in favour of the worker’s claims.