Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A worker

A facility services company

Representatives

Joseph Ateb Siptu Trade Union

Ruth Heenan, 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

IR - SC - 00000427

04/07/2022

The Worker started working for the Employer company in 1998. His duties include carrying out cleaning duties at locations as required by the Employer.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 4th July 2022.

Introduction.

Adjudicator, pursuant to section 13 Industrial Relations Act 1969, this claim is before you for a recommendation. It is the position of SIPTU that the Employer has treated the Worker very unfairly and a recommendation in favour of the Worker is reached.

Background to case.

•         The Worker started working for the Employer company in 1998. His duties include carrying out cleaning duties at locations as required by the Employer.

•         The Worker contends that he was issued a Contract of Employment (COE). The Worker further contends that his working hours as contained within his COE are Monday- Thursday 8am-4:30pm & Fridays 8am-3:30pm.

•         The Worker contends that, due to his long service record and experience, he was made to carry out some supervisory roles which involved trainings, issuing instructions to newer staffs. The Worker contends that he was never renumerated for carrying out these extra responsibilities.

•         The Worker states that for some time, the Employer has been trying to get him to change the COE. Some of the methods adopted by the Employer included attempting to get the Worker append his signature to documents that are vaguely explained or simply had some vital parts left out blank and when the Worker had asked why he should sign a document that had some vital parts missing (specifically his Times of Work), no answer was given.

•         On numerous occasions, the Worker was given a document by his line-manager and instructed to ''just sign it". The Worker insisted on taking time to read the document before signing it and when the document was reviewed, the Worker discovered that it was a COE with blanked­ out working hours section. The Worker proceeded to fill out his hours of work and returned the document to his line-manager. The line-manager was not happy with what the Worker had done, and he let the Worker know this by the use of some choice words after which he proceeded to throw the document at the Worker and "stormed off'.

•         Some other methods applied by the Employer was coercive methods. On one occasion, the Worker was having a discussion with Mr Finton Lawlor (a senior manager) about getting some extra pay for carrying out supervisory roles, Mr Finton Lawlor brought up the issue of the Worker's COE and told him to sign the "NEW CONTRACT' that he was been asked to sign, but the Worker informed Mr Lawlor that he had a contract and intend to be bound by the contents. It is the Worker's position that Mr Lawlor was not happy with this response from the Worker.

•         When the Worker sought answers on why he was being treated in this unfair way after putting in over two decades of dedicated service into the company, he was met with passive aggressive behaviour from the management team and some form of exclusion.

Union Argument.

•         It is respectfully submitted that the foregoing is unacceptable behaviour from an employer of the size and import as the Employer.

•         The employer/employee relationship is one that has trust at its core, and it is the contention of the Worker that the Employer has breached that trust due to its under-handed and coercive ways it tried to get the Worker to do its bidding.

•         The action of the Employer is particularly egregious considering the fact that the Worker has spent a sizeable amount of his adult life in the employ of this company.

•         The argument can be made that such behaviour by the Employer is a breach of the mutual trust and confidence duty implied in an employment contract.

Conclusion&RemedySought.

·        It is respectfully submitted that based on the balance of probability, the preponderance of evidence clearly shows that the Worker has been treated in a very unfair way.

·       It is the contention of the Worker that he put his trust in the Employer, believing that the Employer would do what was right, but the Employer abused that trust.

·       It is the contention of the Worker that he is in constant fear and stress as a result of these actions by the Employer as he is not sure what to expect next from the Employer.

·       The Union is respectfully seeking that a recommendation in favour of the Worker is reached and some monetary compensation, as some form of restitution to the Worker is required.

The Employer company is entitled to introduce a new pay structure and complied with its responsibilities by consulting with employees at the information session. There was no “deception” or “coercion”, as the Worker alleges. The very fact that this employee is not part of this scheme shows that he (along with other employees) is not being forced to join the scheme, and his right to opt not to has been respected.

The Employer has made submissions as to why the Worker was not paid for the days not worked between 10 and 17th January. The Employer denies acting unfairly toward the Worker in this regard.

With regard to the training the Worker has provided to other employees, the

Employer does not contest this and is grateful for the workers efforts, which they consider an ordinary expectation with the role. It is par for the course that experiences members of the team would train the newer team members. The worker has never put himself forward for a supervisory role, but the Employer would like to take this opportunity to encourage the worker to do so, and assure him that if he does in future, his application will be seriously considered.

The Employer submits that they have acted fairly and reasonably and deny any

allegations of unfair treatment as set out in the worker’s submission.

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

The worker was not coerced or forced into accepting a new contract of employment. Proof of this is the fact that he remains on his old terms and conditions of employment.

As per submission the employer has stated –

“The Employer company is entitled to introduce a new pay structure and complied with its responsibilities by consulting with employees at the information session. There was no “deception” or “coercion”, as the Worker alleges. The very fact that this employee is not part of this scheme shows that he (along with other employees) is not being forced to join the scheme, and his right to opt not to has been respected”.

I make no recommendation in favour of the worker and accept the employer’s version of events.