Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Brian  Patton

Chadwicks Group

Representatives

SIPTU

IBEC

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00050601-002

12/05/2022

The complainant says that his employer has unilaterally altered his agreed working time arrangements (start and finish times) in an arbitrary and punitive way, contrary to both the internal procedures in the employment and the requirements of natural justice: representing a breach of section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act.

The respondent is a building materials supplier, and the complainant began his employment in May 2006. He is employed on a Contract of Indefinite duration as a general operative.

Between five and six years prior to the incidents giving rise to the current complaints, the respondent’s then Branch Manager proposed that the complainant change his ordinary start time to 8.00 am. The complainant agreed to this proposal and this start time had been in effect ever since.

On July 2nd, 2021, the complainant was called into the office of the branch manager. He raised what he described subsequently as ‘concerns in relation to the complainant’s performance, including an incident where he alleged, he had been speaking for too long to a customer on that date, and that, beginning from the following Monday (5th of July), The complainant would no longer be starting at 8am, but rather he would start work from 8.30am.

The complainant submitted a formal grievance in relation to these matters under the agreed Grievance procedure on August 11th, but the grievance was not upheld, and he appealed.

The failure to notify him of this change of the basis of the complaint.

We submit that the case in respect of the breach of section 5 of the Act is made out in the above and the respondent acknowledges the breach in the outcomes of both the original Grievance decision and on appeal.

In all the facts and circumstances of this case, the complaint is well-founded, and the Adjudicator is asked to make such order under section 7(2)(c) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act restore the complainant ’s ‘early start’ hours of work as they pertained prior to 2 July 2021.

 TheComplainant has alleged failure on thepartoftherespondenttoadheretoSection7oftheTermsofEmployment(Information) Act, 1994

The complainant has alleged that the respondent ‘sought to alter fundamental terms and conditions’ of his employment by discontinuing the ‘early start’ which he states had been in effect for a considerable time.

It is further alleged that the change was implemented without consultation and no agreement from the complainant. He states that an original grievance was upheld ‘under agreed local procedures’ and his previous start time was re-established. He states that within a few days his local manager decided to ignore the grievance outcome and new start times were re- introduced.

The ‘Early Start’ referred to in the complainant’s claim refers to a work commencement time of 8a.m. instead of the normal 8.30a.m. start. The ‘Early Start’ is preferred by the complainant and the other three General Operatives who work in the yard as it ends thirty minutes earlier in the evening allowing the worker to avoid the evening time heavy traffic.

Before July 2021 the complainant began his working day at 08.00 four days a week and at 08.30 on a Tuesday. He subsequently invoked the grievance procedure on August 23rd, 2021.

In his grievance correspondence the Complainant alleged that his manager informed him that his hours were being changed to an 8.30a.m. start. The complainant’s grievance was partially upheld with a recommendation that his ‘hours be reverted with affect from 24 January 2022’.

The Complainant has alleged that the Respondent has failed to provide details of changes to his start time in writing. The changes to his hours and those of his three colleagues were implemented on foot of a collective agreement made between SIPTU and the respondent. The said agreement provides, inter alia, that,

It is accepted that the pace of change in the business environment demands the co- operation and flexibility with normal ongoing business adaptation and modernisation to include technology, culture and sustainability. As part of this commitment to a philosophy of cooperation and flexibility, it is recognised that rapid change is required to match and exceed competitor offerings. Consequently, the implementation of this agreement should result in improved competitiveness and productivity underpinned by employment security….

It is respectfully submitted that the changes to the hours of the four general operatives in the yard, including the complainant, were implemented in accordance with the Collective Agreement as part of ‘normal ongoing business adaptation’to address the business and operational needs of the business.

In light of the above information, the respondent respectfully requests that the Adjudicator find that the complainant’s claims fails.

I have addressed the substantive issues arising in this case under a separate reference.

Some relatively serious procedural issues arose there, and I have considered them under that separate process.

This complaint is a relatively technical one and concerns the complainant’s right to be advised of changes in his terms of employment as required by Section 5(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

The respondent has submitted that the changes in question fall within the ambit of a collective agreement, but this is to miss the point.

Certain minor changes may be made in a person’s terms of employment without consent, but where these form part of the requirements of the statutory statement, the obligation placed on an employer is to notify the employee concerned that this has happened.

The respondent therefore has not disputed that in this case it failed to do so and therefore the complaint is well-founded.

In the context of my separate recommendation, I require the respondent to update the complainant’s statement of his terms of employment to define his hours as of July 2021, and to take account of any subsequent changes (but not to include those disputed changes arising in the separate dispute referred under the Industrial Relations Act).

Compliant CA-00050601-002 is well founded and I require the respondent to update the complainant’s statement under the Act as described above and also to pay him compensation of one week’s remuneration.

Notification of changes in Terms of Employment.