ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011040
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | An Employer |
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-00014775-001 | 04/10/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/01/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes
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).
Background:
The complainant has been employed by the respondent since 25th of April 2005. The dispute concerns the alleged unilateral alteration of the complainant’s contract following his successful application and appointment to a reduced hours contract pursuant to an open competition for the position. The parties made written and oral submission to the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that following his initial application for a reduced (24 hour) position on night shift in 2015 he was despite some difficulty in the matter appointed to the same in January 2017. In July of the same year the respondent sought to invoke Article 4 of the agreement with the trade union which provides for flexibility and mobility of labour viz. ‘from time to time to perform specific functions or to complete a production schedule’ to force him to return to his original 39 hours per week contract. The complainant does not accept that this clause can be used to force him to return to his original 39 hours per week contract as his new contract is stand alone in respect of hourly working week. It arises from an open competition and the complainant is not in a position, to revert to full time working (the respondent being fully aware of his circumstances) as it would undermine his work/life balance. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that the shift structure on the line where the complainant is employed was shown to be inefficient and underperforming and that as a result, it was necessary to revise its operation. There was extensive discussion and communication with and by the trade union in the matter. The other 15 employees engaged fully with the required readjustments following formal notice of change and the respondent worked with 3 employees to facilitate personal circumstances. The complainant refused to revert to full time working in accordance with the respondent’s request and was not disposed to accept amelioration thereof. He has been facilitated over the years and most recently to finish his course of studies in psychotherapy. The respondent relies upon the agreement with the trade union (articles 4 and 6) to justify its right to make the required adjustments to the complainant’s contract. Article 6 requires that ‘In exceptional circumstances the company may require an individual on part-time employment to revert to full-time employment and in this case a notice period of 1 month will be given’. |
Findings and Conclusions:
It is clear, that the articles which form part of the agreement with the collective of its employees and relied upon in this case by the respondent are an integral part of the environment in which it manages the business. Employees through the trade union agree that the changes proposed by the respondent are legitimate and necessary. In those circumstances the requirement set out at article 6 is preeminent. I find therefore that there is a contractual obligation on the complainant to comply with the terms thereof. I note that the complainant has rejected an offer to meet half-way. |
Recommendation:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision 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 recommend that the complainant accept the offer made by the respondent to meet half-way. |
Dated: 3rd September 2018.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes