Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Café & Bar Attendant

A Catering Company

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-00023372-001

20/11/2018

The respondent has a catering franchise in a concert venue and the complainant has been employed for more than 20 years as a bar attendant. For the last 13 years, she worked in the performers’ café / bar.   In October 2017, she was informed that she would no longer be assigned to the performers’ bar and she was moved to the coffee dock and restaurant. She complains that this is unfair, and she wants to be reinstated in her former position.

In October 2017, the complainant was out sick for a few days and when she returned, she was informed that she was being moved to the coffee dock and restaurant in the concert venue. She said that she wasn’t given a reason for the move.

At a meeting on November 17th, the complainant was informed that she was moved because a new barista coffee machine was installed in the performers’ bar and the complainant was not trained on how to use it. On the complainant’s behalf, Mr Dorda wrote to the HR manager on November 24th and said that she was available to undertake training on the new barista machine. The HR manager said that the matter was to be dealt with in accordance with the company’s grievance procedure.

Some time later, another HR manager intervened and another meeting took place, the outcome of which was confirmed on January 9th 2017. This manager said that the new barista machine “must be operated by an employee who is barista-trained…”   This manager concluded that a move back to the performers’ bar was not “fundamental to resolving this grievance.”

On January 17th 2018, training on the new machine was arranged for the complainant.   She appealed against the decision of January 9th not to re-assign her to the performers’ bar, but her appeal was not upheld. The manager hearing the appeal recommended that the complainant continue with training on the new barista machine, and on a new cash register which had also been introduced.

In early April 2018, the parties attended mediation at the WRC. The outcome was an agreement to appoint an independent assessor to assess if the complainant is competent to work in the performers’ bar and able to carry out the requirements of the job of café / bar attendant in that location.   Terms of reference were to be agreed with the independent assessor. Mr Dorda said that the company “ignored the outcome of the mediation” and requested the complainant to attend more training. The complainant now seeks to be reinstated to the performers’ bar with immediate effect and to be compensated for the distress caused to her by what was in her view, an unfair decision to move her.

For the respondent, the HR managers said that the complainant was moved from the performers’ bar as she did not have the skills or training to use the new barista machine.   They argue that the complainant was assigned to a similar job with no changes to her terms and conditions of employment, or her remuneration.

Following the mediation in April 2018, the representatives for the respondent said that they arranged further training for the complainant but that she “could not or did not want to adapt.” Their view is that, as she is not “proficient” on the new barista machine or the new cash register, she cannot be assigned to the performers’ bar, as this requires working alone for most of the time.  Their view is that the role in the coffee dock and restaurant is no different from the job in the performers’ bar, apart from the fact that more people work in the coffee dock and restaurant.

The respondent’s case is that service levels and customer expectations prevent them from re-assigning the complainant to the performers’ bar until she can use the barista and cash register with a greater level of efficiency and competency.

In conclusion, the representatives of the respondent stated that the complainant’s job is at the concert venue and not in a particular location in the venue. They have no issue with her working in the performers’ bar, as long as she demonstrates that she can make coffee and serve customers at a standard that is considered to be acceptable.

This is a dispute that should be capable of resolution by the application of reasonableness from both sides. The complainant is a long-serving employee. The barista machine and the BOSS cash register system are relatively new to the concert venue and it may be a challenge to operate both correctly.   The attributes of a concert venue are such that a lot of customers arrive at a bar or counter at the same time, and then there are quiet periods when nothing happens. For most of the time, service is pressurised and it can be difficult to manage queues of people.

The complainant is an employee of the respondent and her place of work is the concert venue, not a particular bar. It would not be possible to run the catering service effectively if all the staff were assigned to their preferred locations. That said, the complainant is an employee with many years of service and, apart from her dexterity on the barista and cash register and the fact that the performers’ bar is a one-person operation, no reason has been submitted why she can’t be assigned there.

At the hearing, I outlined what I consider is a reasonable approach to resolving this dispute. I recommend that:

A job profile is drawn up which describes the components of the job of café / bar attendant.   This should state what is required to do the job to the highest standard, setting out the skills that the job-holder must have, the issues that require particular attention and any specific difficulties or challenges that have to be dealt with on a daily basis.

From among the employees at the venue, one or two barista / cash register “champions” are to be selected to support the complainant to do the job to the standard required by her employer. These colleagues should be good communicators and able to break down the components of the job and act as trainers to enable the complainant to learn from them and to master the skills of being a barista and of competently using the cash register. The HR manager should ensure that the two colleagues selected have a good working relationship with the complainant and that they are positively disposed to supporting her.

This support from the “champion” employees is to take place for six weeks.

After the completion of six weeks’ supportive training, the HR manager and catering manager are to meet the complainant to discuss her capabilities and to determine if she could manage the barista and cash register in the performers’ bar in the manner required by the company and the client. When reaching a decision on this, the views of the complainant’s colleagues who have been supporting her training are to be taken into account.

If the managers decide that the complainant is competent to be re-assigned to work in the performers’ bar, some consideration should be given to working some shifts in the other locations, so that no individual is assigned on a long-term basis to one particular location.

Job location