ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00035524

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A supermarket worker	A supermarket

Complaint(s):

Act

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

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley

Date of Hearing: 06/09/2021

Location of Hearing: Remote hearing

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Background:

The Employee commenced employment with the Employer on the 6 August 2002 as a general assistant.

From June 2019 she had a new manager and she found that she was the subject of various changes necessitating the lodgement of a grievance in October 2019.

Summary of Employee’s Case:

The Employee's case is that the Employer is seeking to unilaterally change her terms and conditions of employment which she contended were red circled in 2010.

In 2010 her store manager agreed that her hours would be red circled. This was confirmed in a meeting record:

[worker’s] pattern of hours will not be challenged – she will work 3 x 6 o'clock starts in 2 x 7 o'clock. [worker’s] has agreed to work in the deli department. On her 6 o'clock starts she will spend her first hour packing bread and cakes before going into set up deli counter.

The fixed hours of the worker continued without interruption until August 2019. A proposed change to her hours was raised by the new store manager. The Employee was informed that she was being moved to the bakery and that her hours would change. The Employee outlined that she had an agreement in place since 2010 regarding her hours. The manager agreed to give her six weeks’ notice before they were changed. She advised that the hours would likely fluctuate going forward.

A meeting took place on 19 August 2019. The Employee confirmed that she would not change her hours and that she would require notification of the change in writing. No formal written notification of the change was provided to her. The Employee outlined her objection to the change to her long-standing agreement and explained how the proposed changes would impact on her family including additional childcare costs.

The Employee lodged a grievance on 20 August 2019. A grievance hearing took place on 24 August 2019. The outcome issued on 28 November 2019. The outcome was appealed on 10 December 2019. An appeal was conducted on 7 January 2020. Follow-up meeting was held on 19 February 2020. An outcome meeting took place on 9 March 2020 with a letter of outcome furnished.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer set out that my function was to establish if the Employer acted fairly in its dealings with the worker.

The Employer stated that at each stage of the grievance and appeals procedure, they complied with SI 146 of 2000.

It claimed that it cannot be expected to roster the Employee for hours where there is no work for her to complete.

The Employer contended that it was more than fair in making every effort to maintain the Employee's earnings by facilitating her hours as far as reasonably possible to provide for both work life balance and the needs of the business. It submitted that it is honoured the stipulations within collective agreements and her contract of employment in its entirety.

It maintained it was not in breach of the terms and conditions of employment.

Conclusions:

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

At the hearing the Employee confirmed that she now worked various hours, most of them early starts. Her latest finish was 4 PM.

This would appear to be a compromise to the dispute the parties find themselves in.

It is clear from the dates set out in the Employees submission that it took a protracted period of time to deal with her grievance. Delays in dealing with complaints does not assist either side in working together in a harmonious way.

Recommendation:

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

I find in favour of the Employees position.

In view of same and the goodwill displayed by each side in the rostering and working of those hours, I recommend that the Employee undertake to be flexible in the event of any business change arising that necessitates an amendment to her working pattern and to engage with the employers “Flexible Working Policy”.

I recommend that the Employer undertake to endeavor to be reasonable when seeking flexibility to meet its business needs and to engage with the Employee when such business needs necessitate a change in her working pattern.

In the circumstances of this unique situation, I recommend that the Employer pay to the Employee €350.00 as a gesture of goodwill to compensate for the delays in the grievance process. This is not to be seen as a precedent.

Dated: 10th November 2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley

Key Words:

Change in working hours. Delay in processing grievance.