ADJ-00013634

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Airport Worker

An Airport

Representatives

Marie O'Connor SIPTU

A HR Director

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-00017962-001

14/03/2018

The Complainant was seeking to be put on a 40 hour work week, instead of a 20 hour work week,   as long as a certain service was required by the Respondent.

The Complainant was employed in March 2008 as a Search Unit Officer and applied for a 40 hour per week position at that time and he commenced on 40 hours in August 2008.

On June 5th 2012 the Complainant received a contract of Indefinite Duration for 20 hours per week.

As a result of a Collective Agreement the Complainant received an amendment to his contract in May 2015.

On October 14th 2016 the Respondent, by letter, placed the Complainant on a 40 hour week “to meet the operational needs of X Airline”.

In December 2016 the Respondent wrote to the Complainant extending his 40 hour week, beyond January 9th 2017.

However, in December 2017 the Respondent transferred the Complainant back to a 20 hour week and he remains on a 20 hour week.

The Complainants case is that the service which was referred to by the Respondent as justification for increasing his hours from 20 to 40 per week still continues and he should revert back to 40 hours as long as that service is operational and that he should receive back pay for the lost 20 hours each week since December 2017.

The sequence of contracts and events were not contested by the Respondent.

The Respondent maintained that the primary contract with the Complainant was the contract effective June 5th 2012 which stated it could alter the 16 hours per week from time to time and amended by agreement in May 31st to 20 hours per week.

The Respondent stated that the business need for the Complainant to work 40 hours per week ceased when another member of staff became available for hours in the Complainants department when he returned to work.

The Respondent stated that it was going through serious financial issues at present and needed to reduce its fixed costs in line with business needs.

While this claim is an Industrial relations one the core issue is whether the Complainant had a legal entitlement to a 40 hour week while a particular airline operated based on a letter provided to him by the Respondent on December 20th 2016.

The Complainants contract of employee dated June 5th 2012 clearly states “ your normal working week will be 16 hours per week…and The Company reserves the right to alter these working hours from time to time”. This implies legally that the Complainants hours can very, up or down and indeed it is the practice that they do vary based on the seasonal needs of the Airport. The new contract dated May 31st 2015 states “Your normal working week effective 31st May 2015 will be 20 hours per week”. This amendment was the subject of a collective agreement.

The Complainant was given a letter in October 2016 which stated “ the Company is pleased to confirm in writing your transfer to a 40 hour working week effective November 1st 2016 to meet the operational needs of X Airline”. This was quite a specific justification for the change of hours per week to 40 and understandably gave the Complainant the impression that he was moving to a 40 hour per week as long as the X Airline service was operational. However, as another member of staff became available again to work in the Complainants Department it appears the need for the Complainant to work 40 hours per week was eliminated. While the letter provided to the Complainant was very specific in nature it does not super-cede, in legal terms, the contract of employment which allows for the variation of hours or that the normal working week are 20 hours per week. It is not for the Adjudicator to comment on why the letter changing the Complainants hours to 40 was so specific and did not just say the change to 40 hours was subject to business needs at any time but it is clear that it created a reasonable expectation in the Complainants view that as long as X Airline was operational he would be working 40 hours per week. In summary, from a legal perspective the letter amending the hours to 40 per week does not override the contract of employment but in the manner it was written gave a reasonable expectation to the Complainant that he would be working the 40 hours per week as long as x Airline was operating. For these reasons, I find that the Complainant does not have a legal entitlement to be guaranteed to work 40 hours while x Airline operates as his contract of employment only provides that he is only guaranteed a 20 hour working week but that in view of the expectation created by the letter dated October 24th 2016, I recommend that the Complainant be given a goodwill gesture payment of 5,000 Euros   in lieu of the misunderstanding as to his increased hours of work while x Airline was operational.

Hours of work contract