Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Cleaner

A cleaning company

Representatives

Anne Hickey Solicitors

COO HR

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-00015600-001

06/11/2017

The complainant is employed as a cleaner for the respondent working at a single location.   The client reduced the hours and the complainant’s hours were reduced. At the same time a second employee had his hours increased.

The complainant has worked as a cleaner in a store in Sligo since 11th September 2007 for between 20 and 23 hours per week. There were three cleaners assigned to the particular store with the complainant and another working 5 days per week and the third person working weekends only. The complainant had an accident in May 2017 requiring her to take sick leave.   During this period she was assured her hours would not be cut. On her return to work in September she heard through the grapevine that her hours were being changed. At that point she was on a four-day week due to stress and her damaged knee. Subsequently, she received a letter stating that her hours were being changed to 2 per day or 12 per week meaning that her maximum weekly wage was €131.   Simultaneously the company was increasing the hours given to the third worker who had previously only done the weekend shift and had not been employed until 2016. This caused the complainant further stress and she went out sick.   She tried to discuss the situation with the respondent but the latter blamed the store for the reduction in hours.

The reduction in hours arose due to the client – the store in which the complainant was located - reducing the contract with the respondent. Staff were given notice of the reduction. Due to an oversight the complainant was not included in the face to face meetings. The staff handbook, which was emailed to staff and is available in the cleaning room,   provides for a reduction in hours as necessary. There are no other hours available in the store in question or in any nearby location.

I note the commitment of the respondent in correspondence to the complainant’s representative to look for additional hours that might become available in the vicinity and, while any such hours might not be her preference, I believe the complainant should consider these if they become available in a reasonable location. I also believe that the complainant should engage with the respondent regarding her sick leave and a return to work.

The reduction in the total hours available within the store in question arose due to the demands of the client and therefore was outside of the control of the respondent.   However, the decision on how to assign the remaining available hours was at the discretion of the respondent and I do not think it was reasonable to implement a significant cut to a longer serving member of staff while at the same time giving an increase in hours to the third member who had significantly shorter service. The respondent asserted that contractually it was at liberty to vary hours although no evidence of such a clause in a contract of employment was produced. I don’t believe it would be desirable to overturn the decision on the distribution of hours at this point in time and therefore the complainant should be compensated.

I recommend that the respondent pay the complainant €4,000 as full and final compensation for the unfairness of its treatment to her, which sum, not being an award of wages is not subject to tax.

Reduction in hours while at the same time increasing the hours of another employee