Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Technician

Retail Company

Representatives

Orla O’Leary   MHC Sols, Donna McGahavan

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00030183-001

12/08/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012

CA-00030183-002

12/08/2019

The Complainant is employed as a Technician / Customer Services Adviser since 26th October 2008. He is paid €1,939.08 per month. He has claimed that the Respondent changed his terms and conditions of employment but did not notify him in writing of that change. Also, he has made a complaint regarding an alleged Mobile Road Transport Activities Regulations breach.

He stated that he was employed as a Technician. In April 2019 he requested and was granted a transfer to a store nearer his home. He had agreed with his management that there would be no change to his terms and conditions of employment. After a couple of weeks after transferring he was asked to sign a new contract of employment with his position listed as Customer Adviser. This new post had a changed rate of pay, change to his holiday entitlement and some other changes. He then realised that his rate of pay had changed in 2009 without notification. It was discovered that his hourly rate was dropped by 38cent per hour. The Management also advised him that the Technician position had ceased. The management then agreed to pay him the underpayment. It is their position that the Technician position changed in an “organic development” over time. He was initially asked as a favour to deal with customers but overtime it became the norm. He spent considerable time on front of house duties and less on repairs. He is now doing a job that he has no people skills for. He believes that he was demoted from the post of Technician to that of Customer Adviser. He holds a formal qualification as a Technician. His job has changed and they did not formally notify him.

They stated that he commenced as a Technician. The business changed and this role became that of In store Service Adviser which involved more front of house duties. This was not a demotion it was simply a rebranding exercise. He now undertakes repair work and customer service duties. It is accepted that he was not notified of the change in title, but his duties have been the same for the last six years. He was transferred to a different store in February/March 2019 and an error occurred and he was issued with a “new start” contract of employment, rather than a change of location. There were issues with the contract and these were clarified such as start date, holiday entitlement and the error that had occurred regarding his hourly rate of pay was rectified and he received €5,779 in arrears. He has not been issued with a revised contract as he has been out sick since July 2019. It is accepted that he was not notified of the rebranding of his role. It is their position that he has not been prejudiced by the inactions of the Respondent.

I find that the Complainant was originally employed as a Technician.

I find that over the years the business model changed and his role evolved in that changing environment.

I find that his role has changed from that of exclusively working as a Technician to a role that encompasses both repair work and front of house customer service duties.

I accept that he holds a qualification as a Technician.

I accept that the changing model of the company means that much of the heavier duties of Technician is now done in the UK.

I find that the Complainant has been performing his current range of duties for about six years.

I find that, had he not received in error, a “new start” contract with the title Customer Adviser this claim may never have surfaced.

I find that he has an extraordinary jaundiced view of customer service for a person working in a customer service environment.

However, I find that his role has changed from that of Technician to that of Customer Service Adviser/ Instore Service Adviser.

I find that he was notified in writing of that change when he transferred stores.

While this contract was issued in error it did confirm the change in title and this led to this complaint to the WRC.

I note that the Respondent would have no difficulty in reverting to the title of Technician, but it is accepted that his duties have changed and evolved over the years.

I find that his role and duties have changed and he was notified in writing, albeit in error, of those changes.

Therefore, I find that he was notified in writing of the changes and so no breach of Sec 5 has occurred.

The Complainant confirmed that he was not employed by a business that operates transport services.

The Respondent stated that this Regulation only applies to “mobile workers” who are employed by a company or business that operate transport services. Neither the Respondent’s or Complainant’s activities bring them within the scope of the Regulations.

I find that the Respondent and the Complainant are not involved in a business that operates transport services.

I find that these Regulations do not apply to this employment.

I find that this complaint is misconceived.

Not notified of a change to terms and conditions of employment, also a misconceived claim.