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 - 00002300

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 This is one of two remaining disputes, with six of the nine, all around the mid-west area withdrawn, for reasons which were not disclosed by either party.

The employee in this dispute is working for the employer since 1982. On the WRC complaint form she described the dispute as’ loss of responsibilities-paid at a lower rate of pay to other supervisors I was grouped with.’ The union provided details of the functions which the employee had performed previously and formed part of her responsibility  adding Her status was clear to all store employees, from ne entrants to long serving staff and indeed store management.’

After long interactions, the employee was not required to accept the revised job description provided for P&C supervisors.

There were references to the dignity at work policy and by extension bullying.

The employer objected to consideration of the claim for a pay increase on the basis that it is a collective issue affecting a body of workers and in event the rates of pay for the group are agreed with the Union including some red circled rates.

On the removal of responsibilities, the employer appeared to agree that certain duties were removed from the employee, but these occurred prior to and were unconnected with the restructuring of the supervisory management function.

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 they are no longer working on the floor or not to any extent. 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.

In this particular dispute I am asked to recommend a monetary award. Frankly this request makes no sense as an individual dispute given that the matter of pay for those who remained was and is being pursued by Mandate at national level and is a collective issue. I have no jurisdiction in this matter as IBEC pointed out in their submission referencing Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The employer submission seems to suggest they wish to engage the employee further in recruitment. If the employer wishes to discuss a change in the employees duties, that is a matter for discussion at local level in the first instance, using the relevant procedures.