Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A worker

A transport company

Representatives

Tanya Maksimova SIPTU

self 

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-00039644-001

07/09/2020

The worker has been employed with the employer since 1997.  He is a member of a union.

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The worker submitted that the employer questioned the validity of the letter of appointment given to him over 18 years ago.

The worker questioned how the provisions of an agreement were being applied to him arising from the repudiation of his letter of appointment.

The worker sought to have his letter of appointment interpreted in a manner which indicated that he was appointed to work at one station only.

The employer queried the existence of the letter of appointment and submitted that notwithstanding the letter, that following a renegotiation of its roster in 2015 (and again in 2018) the worker was required to work in either the hub station or substation. 

It was accepted that the agreement meant that a worker could not be assigned cross city but submitted that the agreement called for workers to be assigned to two stations which could be considered one location.

During the hearing the employer accepted the existence of the letter of appointment from 2002.  However, it argued that this did not mean that the worker could not be called upon on a regular basis to work from either the hub or substation which contained his location of employment.

Arising from the written and oral submissions, I find that the worker was appointed to the location outlined in the letter of 2002. 

I find that in 2015 the employer introduced a ‘two station, one location’ concept in its reorganisation of the company.  This concept was put to, and accepted by, the members of the union prior to its introduction.

As part of that agreement stations were divided into ‘hubs’ and substations which were served by a “five-man roster”.  Of the four locations mentioned in the submissions, each location has a hub and substation.  The agreement mentions that all hubs must be fully manned at all times.

The agreement also mentions that staff must be willing to move between the two stations.  In addition, the agreement states that staff must be willing to move to a station on either side of a location.

The worker’s representative suggested that the station to which the worker was initially assigned meant that he should work there as a matter of priority.  Having considered the written and oral submissions, I cannot accept that the spirit or the letter of the agreement indicate that a worker has a priority right to work at one station rather than another.  Accordingly, I do not find that there is a priority accorded to one station rather than another station within a ‘location’ or that staff cannot be required to attend at either station when rostered to do so.

I find that staff have to make themselves available to work at a station to either side of the ‘location’ they are assigned to when needs arise (i.e. particularly when it comes to providing services to customers with disabilities).

I note the employer accepts that workers may swap shifts amongst themselves within a location and that this amounts to a local arrangement.  As this is a local arrangement, I find that this arrangement cannot be relied upon to compel a worker to swap a shift which he is rostered for or to compel the employer to arrange to change shifts which have been assigned to staff.

Having considered all the written and oral submissions in relation to this dispute, I find for the worker in relation to the station of his appointment but against the worker in regard to the remainder of the dispute.

My recommendation is that the worker make himself available at either station within his location subject to the agreed roster arrangements being complied with.  The local arrangement that staff can swop shifts amongst themselves (subject to the limitations of employment legislation) does not mean that staff must swop shifts when requested to do so or that the employer can impose a swap on staff within the location.

I further recommend that the employer retain a copy of the workers letter of appointment on his personnel file.

Employment location, roster, union agreemnet