Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Retail assistant

Retail store

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-00023008-001

02/11/2018

The Complainant has worked with the Respondent company for 26 years. The Complainant holds a Contract described as a pre-96 Contract thought to have some value over latter day Contracts which currently operate in the workplace. This type of Contract gives some certainty to employees when it allows for fixed working hours. The Complainant indicated that she has worked to this Contract for upwards of twenty years.

Until recently, and for a three year period the Complainant had been working away from the shop floor and in the pay role department. She enjoyed her work there. Then in and around December of 2017 the Complainant was asked to make herself available in the Cashier and check-out end of the business as she had the appropriate skills to be up-front. The company was short staffed and there is a recognition that the Complainant was a flexible employee willing under instruction to try her hand at any position. The Complainant was back to interfacing with customers and away from the behind-the-scenes pay-role department.

In the recent past there has been a troubled history between the Complainant and Management. The Complainant went out on Strike Action in connection with the protection of her 1996 Contract. This Strike Action was across the workforce. I note that the Respondent maintains that this action on the part of the Complainant has absolutely nothing to do with the Complaint contained herein. The Complainant on the other hand believes that her good relations and good standing with Management has been eroded by reason of the stance she took and that she was in some way being targeted for her participation.

The Complainant was sanctioned by her Employer for her involvement and wound up with a final written warning on her file which she believed to be most unfair. The Complainant brought a Grievance before the WRC regarding the severity and length of this sanction and managed to have it commuted by six months. However, it was in the course of the hearing of that complaint before the WRC that the Complainant believes she attracted the particular ire of Management. The Complainant gave evidence that the atmosphere around her changed and that she was treated with discourtesy and silence.

In mid-January 2018 the Complainant was advised that she was going to be staying on checkout permanently. The Complainant was told that Management were taking over payroll and in any event her skill was needed in checkout where there was shortage.

As she settled into this position, the pattern of taking a 2pm lunch hour which she had heretofore exercised, was eroded. The Complainant works fixed hours every week and when she was in the payroll department her Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday shifts which started at 7am allowed her to take her lunch break at 2pm. Primarily, this was because she was the only person in Payroll and therefore could take her lunch whenever it pleased her to do so. However now that she was back out on the shop floor she was subject to the regime that operated there. I have been told that she as the earliest person in to work, would usually be given the first lunch break at 12pm. So, of the 5 or 6 people on checkouts, persons coming in at 7 go for lunch at 12 whilst persons coming in at 9 go for lunch at 2 etc. I further note that the staff can swop allotted lunch times amongst themselves.

The Complainant had heretofore usually delayed taking lunch until 2pm so that she could meet up with four long standing friends all of whom aimed for the 2pm slot. She was no longer being allowed to go at 2pm with any certainty or regularity.

The evidence demonstrated that in a 40-week period she was allowed a 2pm lunch only 17 times.

I found the Management’s absolute refusal to give the Complainant any comfort regarding an occasional 2pm lunch break to be regrettable. Of course, I accept that customer-needs and flexibility are very important in the workplace. However, it would have been little enough disruption for the line Manager to ensure that the Complainant was singled out for a late lunch – if only once a week. I formed the impression that the Line Manager who gave evidence was limited in what he could do for the Complainant in this regard. No good reason was provided for not allowing it to happen.

In the circumstances I am recommending that the Complainant’s line Manager (whomsoever that should be moving forward), in whatever department she is working in should ensure (as far is reasonably practicable) that the Complainant be allowed to have her lunch at 2pm at least once out of the three days Tuesday Wednesday and Wednesday which she works. I am recommending that the burden of this task should rest with the Line Manager to organise the 2pm lunch start once a week. It is therefore not good enough that the he or she would make the Complainant go around to her colleagues begging them to swop. I recommend that the Line Manager facilitates this regime.

Given the longevity of her employment I recommend that this be facilitated to the Complainant alone. I recommend that this be implemented within three weeks of receiving this decision.

I am mindful in making this recommendation that the Employer herein has recently won the ”Great Place to Work” award and must presumably want to ensure that it is worthy of such an accolade.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00023008-001

I recommend that the Complainant’s line Manager (whomsoever that should be moving forward), in whatever department she is working in should ensure (as far is reasonably practicable) that the Complainant be allowed to have her lunch at 2pm at least once out of the three days Tuesday Wednesday and Wednesday which she works.