ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference:
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Machine Operator | Manufacturing Company |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00020814-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The claimant has been employed as a Machine Operator with the respondent since May 2006.The claimant submitted that the company were in breach of the Act for failing to notify him in writing of a change to the terms of his employment. He submitted that he lodged a grievance about being assigned to operate the supply press in July 2018 , following which a meeting took place at which the employer advised that the claimant had to operate the supply press. The claimant said that he got no assistance from his trade union on the matter .He submitted that dedicated training was required for this specialist duty particularly with respect to health & safety concerns and that he had no difficulty with being assigned to operate any machine other than the supply press. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent chronicled the employer’s response to the grievance and referred to the correspondence from the HR manager to the claimant in January and July 2018 in which the company submitted that under the company agreement with SIPTU , machine operators may be reallocated to other work including packing, painting and checking. The respondent submitted that there was no breach of Section 5 , that the union agreed with the company’s interpretation of the flexibility clauses , that both the contract of employment and the company union agreement set out the requirements for interchangeability and flexibility and that the respondent had met their obligations under Section 3 when his contract of employment was issued to him in May 2016. |
Decision:
Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and find that in light of the fact that the claimant’s contract of employment provides for flexibility and interchangeability, his assignment to the supply press does not constitute a change to the particulars furnished to the claimant in his contract of employment. Accordingly, I find there was no breach of Section 5 and I do not uphold the complaint. |
Dated: 10th September 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: