Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Supervisor

Retail Multiple

Representatives

Eoin Coates  Mandate Trade Union

Michael McGrath 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 - 00002297

01/03/2024

This dispute stems from a company restructuring involving supervisory staff across the employment. There were national discussions including with the assistance of the WRC Conciliation Service. A category titled floor supervisors were ‘in scope’ for redundancy. However, it appears that while some of those who previously held  the title of floor supervisor, including the employee in this case, had not performed floor duties to any extent or at all for some time. As the post or duties they performed were still required, supervisors such as this employee were retained in a newly titled role, P&C Supervisors for which the employer, as part of the discussions with the Union, issued a job description and gave assurances regarding retention. The job description appears to have been an amalgam of different duties performed by the supervisors across the stores, where different duties had developed at local level over many years. In summary the duties of each supervisor had changed and varied over the years and across the stores. In the form submitted to the WRC, this employee stated’ Following a redundancy programme within my supervisor grade my job title was altered by my employer to that of another grade.’ Efforts to agree an enhanced rate of pay for those remaining were unsuccessful with no agreement on a joint referral to the Labour Court and the Company maintained what remained were individual issues, hence the referral to the WRC. Nine of those represented by Mandate referred disputes to the WRC. One was resolved in discussions with the parties in Mayo. This is one of two remaining disputes, with six of the nine, all around the mid-west area withdrawn, for reasons which were not disclosed by either party.

There were local discussions with the  employee and the Union in September 2024. Mandate objected to the position adopted by management, which was to the effect that if the employee were to identify duties she wished to perform from within the P&C Supervisor job description, he request could be considered. The Union contended that it was for the employer and not the employee to identify duties and a resolution to her situation. Some of the terms of the job description were not acceptable to the employee and she did not sign up for those conditions. Reference was made to the definition of bullying with the dignity at work policy being attached to the Union submission. An exit package was sought by way of the only realistic resolution.

The employer rejected any claim of a detriment to the employee and approximately 95%  of her role remained unchanged. Her previous role in disciplinary matters is more appropriate to a management function; the digital learning function is only accessible to management, a change which occurred some years ago; the employee has said she does not have time anymore for recruitment and selection-this was not removed from her. 

This situation is regrettable, particularly so in an employment which there is a history of a mutually respectful working relationship between the employer and Mandate and where, in my experience, service and loyalty to the Company values and service were always appreciated. Somewhere it seems that the efforts to maintain these traditions got lost in the translation from national to local level. Perhaps it was as simple as the act of bringing the floor supervisors within scope of redundancy raised certain expectations  but no expectation of arriving at a new job description outside of the management structure. Historically, supervisors in the retail trade were part of the management function and this is evident from the composite job description of their duties. That they are no longer part of ‘management’ to the same extent as before, is evidenced by the references to the academy training and digital platform from which they are excluded and also the employers submission which refers to disciplinary procedures being a management function. At the same time, the facts in this and other cases indicate that the floor supervisor role evolved over many years on a local basis and no single role profile existed.

The forgoing points might lead to the conclusion that this is a group and not an individual issue. However, I accept that the employer did identify the local circumstances as individual issues and has not objected to the disputes being heard. That said, the employee in this case is seeking an exit package and as I indicated at the hearing, it would be outside my remit to declare a post redundant. In some of these disputes, local discussions about changing duties within the P&C role profile might be recommended, but in this case, I denote no such interest on the part of the employee and do not therefore consider it helpful to recommend that the employer pursue potential changes in duties further unless the employee seeks to do so, or if changes in the duties emerge from national discussions or  evolve at local level in the future as they have in the past. I should add that I consider the references to the Dignity at Work Policy and by extension an implication of bullying to be misconceived. That policy is designed to deal with interpersonal issues in the workplace and not to the impact of change management issues, as in this case.