LCR23012

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Changes to existing work patterns without consultation or agreement

BACKGROUND:

This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 29th February 2024 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

 A Labour Court hearing took place on 9th July 2024.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

 1. The Union argues that that the Company has reduced the contract for a position from a previous 42 hour week to a 39 hour week and seek a 42 hour week for the position and for two positions that overlap with it.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

 1. The Company says that there is no basis for the Union claim and that the incumbent signed a contract for 39 basic hours on taking up the position.  The two other workers in question have been on a 39 hour job share contract since they took up their positions in 2004 and 2007 respectively.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The matter before the Court concerns a claim by a worker that she should be afforded a 42-hour contract in her role which she moved to following a restructuring in March 2021 which resulted in a range of redundancies. She had been issued with a 39-hour permanent contract when she took up the role and signed that contract in acceptance. She had previously been engaged in a temporary capacity on a 39-hour contract. The claim before the Court was initiated in October 2022.

The employer submitted that the previous incumbent in the role at issue had been the holder of a 42-hour contract. The employer submitted that this was the result of a voluntary decision of the worker following the introduction of annualised hours and he or she could have chosen to take up a 39-hour contract at the time. The trade union does not accept that aspect of the history of the matter.

The trade union submits that the worker is required to work 40 hours per week on average. The employer submits that, according to records over a 124-week period from March 2021 to August 2023, the worker worked a total of 22 to 32.57 hours beyond 39 hours per week across the entire period.

The claim also concerns two job sharing workers who have been employed on 39-hour week contracts since 2004 and 2007 respectively. That claim is based on the fact that these workers provide cover for the first worker’s role when required.

It is disappointing to the Court that the parties have presented before the Court with no shared understanding of the basic facts of the matter. Specifically, the parties cannot agree how many hours any of the workers work per week.

The Court notes that, in accordance with agreed procedures, the claim has been dealt with internally and has been considered at conciliation in the Workplace Relations Commission.

The Court also notes the employer’s submission that, where workers are required to work beyond their agreed contract hours, the widespread arrangement is that management locally, by agreement with the worker concerned, arrange for time off to be taken at another time. The trade union does not dispute that this practice is common but does not accept that the workers before the Court have been afforded such time off on all occasions they were required to work beyond their contract.

The Court in the within matter is requested to recommend that workers who are not required to work 42 hours per week should be afforded 42 hour per week contracts, of which the final three hours would be overtime hours.

The Court concludes that within claim is unsustainable having regard to all of the facts of the matter, and does not recommend its concession. The Court does however recommend that wherever the workers are requested or required to work beyond their contract they are treated fairly in terms of time off at another time.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CC	______________________
8 August 2024	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.