Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A shop worker

A retail supermarket

Representatives

Mandate Trade Union

IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00025216-001

23/01/2019

The worker outlined that for many years she worked as canteen assistant in a supermarket, where she provided breakfast and lunch to staff and management. In September 2018, she was informed that her established working conditions would change and she would now be a customer assistant. The worker challenged this change, but her grievance and subsequent appeal were not upheld. She was only given 24 hours’ notice of the change and was told of this in an informal conversation. The worker outlined that she required certainty that she can take breaks at certain times of day, for example 10.30am and 2.30pm. Since moving to the general assistant role, she has not had this certainty, and this has detrimental consequences for her. The three roles initially offered to her as alternatives were withdrawn and she was not told that the stock control role would end at 9am.

The employer submitted that the worker is a general assistant on the same terms and conditions as her colleagues in the supermarket. It upgraded the canteen facilities and wanted to ensure that staff who work later hours have access to such facilities. The employer outlined that it was entitled to deploy general assistants to meet business needs. It could not change the worker’s hours of work as they were set. It referred to Labour Court recommendation AD123. It differentiated the recommendation in LCR19085, which arose in circumstances where the store canteen was subject to a transfer of undertaking. It submitted that no compensation should be awarded to the worker as it was contractually entitled to move her role, and this was within the scope of the collective agreement. It further submitted that this case has collective implications and, relying on ADJ 14628, no recommendation should issue as it relates to a body of workers.

CA-00025216-001

This is a dispute relating to the worker’s employment and is not “connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers”. I, therefore, have jurisdiction to make a recommendation in the dispute.

The worker has worked for the employer and its predecessor since 1993. Most recently, she worked in the canteen of a supermarket, providing breakfast and lunch to staff and management. The employer was clear to praise the worker for her contribution in this role. It outlined, however, that it upgraded canteen facilities so that they would be available to staff starting at later times or bringing in their own food. This meant that the worker was to be redeployed to a new role.

The change in the worker’s role had an unforeseen consequence. When managing the canteen, she could take breaks for health reasons at 10.30am and 2.30pm. The worker outlines that she does not now have this certainty when working, for example, on the tills. She asked that she be given a guarantee of time off at certain times to take food and medication.

Having considered the contract of employment and the relevant agreements, the employer was entitled to change the worker’s role and to reassign her. I accept that this does not attract an award of compensation and I accept that this is a different situation to the TUPE situation referred to above.

Nevertheless, the worker is entitled to be considered for all the alternative roles mentioned in the grievance process. Furthermore, whichever role the worker is doing, she is entitled to a guarantee of time off for breaks on health grounds. A consequence of the transfer is that this has not been accommodated, despite this being a reasonable accommodation within the ambit of section 16 of the Employment Equality Act.

For this reason, I recommend that the employer offer the worker the full range of possible roles in the supermarket, including the deli counter, the chilled role and stock control. I recommend that the employer guarantee to the worker that she can take breaks at the times she needs on health grounds, for example 10.30 and 2.30. This will mean an alertness on management’s behalf to ensure that the worker is able to take breaks at these times.

CA-00025216-001

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend that the employer offer to the worker the full range of possible roles in the supermarket, including on the deli counter, the chilled role and stock control. I recommend that the employer guarantee to the worker that she can take the rest breaks she needs on health grounds, for example at 10.30am and 2.30pm.

Industrial Relations Act

Not a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers

Change of role

Daily rest breaks