Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

District Manager

Public Transport Operator

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 - 00000872

19/11/2022

The employer embarked on a process to change the management structure and create two separate levels.  One of these levels was service delivery and the second was customer experience.  This change had an impact on the existing roles of the grade referred to as District Mangers.  The worker accepts that the employer is entitled to restructure but disputes that it cannot change his role without the employer negotiating separately with him.  The worker also contends that the employer cannot make any change to his role without his express agreement.

The worker submits that his employer has breached his terms and conditions of employment and the employers dispute resolution framework in relation to the implementation of and his appointment to a changed role.  The employee believes that this constitutes an attempt to force him to accept this role without his agreement.  The worker believes that this proposed change transpired as a result of an investigation which held that the worker was vindicated in his objections to an investigation which the employer wished to pursue.

The employer decided to commence a restructuring of the role of District Managers within the company.  This involved a separation of two roles, one would manage service delivery and the other would manage the customer experience.  The employer confirms that each manager will remain as a manager, but the scope of their role will change as a result of this adjustment.  The rationale behind this change is that the employer wants to ensure that customer service is given the same level of attention as driving.  This is consistent with the practice in the industry in UK and Europe.  The effect on existing District Managers is that they will manage either the service delivery or the customer experience role.  There will be no change to remuneration as a result of this change.

The employee has not attended any meeting to hear an explanation of the new role

The employer has set out a comprehensive rationale in its submission for the proposed change along with a detailed narrative of how this was communicated to the effected workers.  The employer submits that there is no collective agreement in place which encompasses managerial grades, but it does give a commitment to work with all those roles are affected by the change.

The worker in this case has been assigned to one of the service delivery manager roles given his skill set and previous application for a role in the service area.  The worker will not be affected financially by the change.  Of the seven District Managers affected by this change three have accepted and the worker and colleague have not while another is on sick leave and another worker has moved to a new role.

The employer refutes the workers view that this change is linked to other grievances and submits that this change is a company-wide direction and not linked in the manner suggested by the worker.  This change is crucial to the future development of the organisation.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.  This is a trade dispute referred by the Worker under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.  Consequently, there is no complaint under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this referral. By way of clarification this is a voluntary process and there is no formal evidence taken, and no witness evidence. In that context there are no findings of fact made.

The role of an Adjudicator is to make a recommendation to try and resolve this dispute.

A fulsome account of how the parties perceive matters to sit between them as a result of this dispute is outlined in the submissions and the response to those submissions.

There is no doubt that the worker has substantial concerns about the impact of the proposed management structure on his role.  He consistently acknowledges the right of his employer to undertake such a restructure but in parallel with this he makes a requirement that the employer must engage with him.  The employer invited all those who would be appointed to new positions to attend a meeting, but the worker did not as he had indicated that he would not accept the new position.

The worker has made several references in his submission to his employment rights and yet he did not submit any complaint to the WRC under any employment rights statute.  His referral to the WRC was made under the Industrial Relations Act.  As stated above there is no complaint under any employment rights statute.  Accordingly, I cannot make any decision in relation to any breach of the workers employment rights.

In relation to the substantive issue which is the outcome of the proposed restructure.  This process has been ongoing for almost one year.  Having reviewed the exchange of correspondence I find no basis on which the worker and the employer tried to engage in a manner that would lead to a resolution.  I would urge the parties to cease such correspondence.

Having carefully considered the options available to the worker and the employer I make the following recommendation.  That the worker now accepts the position of Service Delivery Manager which was offered to him and that he meets with the Head of Service Delivery (and if not in post the next most relevant person) and obtain clarification in relation to this role and identify any training or skills update.  I am also recommending that the worker take up this position no later than four weeks from the date of this recommendation. 

Change of role.