Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A   Production Operative

A Manufacturer

Representatives

Unite the   Union

None

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint    seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13    of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00011193-001

08/05/2017

The   complainant commenced working for the respondent on the 14^th   October 1991. She seeks to retain her current grade and pay, on a red-circled   and personal-to-holder basis, until such time that she obtains a position at   this grade and rate of pay. The respondent denies the claim, relying on a   collective agreement.

The   complainant outlines that while her role changed substantially in April 2017,   her role continues, albeit now performed by line managers with the assistance   of information technology. She seeks to retain both the grade and the rate of   pay on an ongoing basis, until such time that she obtains a role at the same   grade and rate of pay.

At the   outset of the adjudication, the complainant confirmed that this matter had   been raised internally with the respondent prior to this referral. The   complainant said that her moving to a Grade D role would affect both her pay   and later her pension. Most of the Grade G vacancies are in two-shift roles,   while she had previously carried out a day role. It was submitted on behalf   of the complainant that she did not want to set a precedent and that any   recommendation should be done on a person-to-holder basis. While she was   arguing against the collective agreement, this was a unique situation. The   tasks which the complainant had previously done were still being done   in-house, but they had been transferred to others to do. The complainant   envisaged that she would obtain a Grade G position in the foreseeable future.

The   complainant explained that 90% of Grade G roles are on two-shifts and there   were few day Grade G shifts. The fact that the complainant was losing a day   role was an issue. Because of her length of service, the complainant was   entitled to a grade guarantee of 18 months. In respect of the stores role,   they ultimately became to two-shift roles, so staff were restored their G   grades.

In closing   comments, it was submitted that it was unlikely that the complainant would be   able to find an alternative Grade G day role. Since June 2017, she was now on   a day production line in a Grade D role, but with the grade guarantee for 18   months. She had not been trained in the new system so was unable to resume   her former role. It was submitted on her behalf that this was the first   occasion such a case had been taken in the light of the collective agreement   and this demonstrated the unique nature of the situation. The complainant had   been affected by efficiencies and had to make the disruptive change to   two-shifts. It was submitted that they did not want to set a precedent or to   open the floodgates.

The   respondent asserts that the complainant is entitled to retain her previous   Grade G grade rate of pay while she now works a lower Grade D period. This   continues for a period of 18 months and is covered by a collective agreement.   The respondent states that between August 2008 and August 2017, the   complainant carried out a clerical day role, where she acted as intermediary   between line managers and payroll. This role has been replaced by a real-time   payroll system that was successfully trialled by the respondent.

At the   adjudication, the respondent confirmed that the difference in pay was   approximately €72 per week gross. It stated that there were about 200 Grade G   personnel and 160 Grade D personnel, with Grade E being abolished and   subsequently red-circled. It submitted that there would soon be another round   of roles for the complainant to go for, and there might be no incentive for   an employee to seek such roles if they received an outcome as sought in this   case.

The   respondent submitted that what the complainant sought went against the   collective agreement, as well as going against the grade structure, where each   employee is paid for the job they do, and the grade guarantee. The respondent   said that there would be knock-on effects on others and that the   complainant’s former role had not transferred. Instead, managers inputted the   information into an IT system, resulting in the role being removed by   efficiency and technology. The respondent explained what had occurred   following other changes and stated that because most grade G roles were   two-shift, it would be unfair to red circle one person’s day hours.

In closing   comments, the respondent acknowledged that this had been the first case   subject to such a referral, but what was sought went against the grading   structure and grade guarantee. Other employees had been treated in the same   way as the complainant and the scarce number of day grade G roles meant it   would be more inequitable to treat the complainant differently.

The   complainant is a longstanding employee of the respondent and in recent years   has been doing a day clerical role. This involved ensuring that payroll had accurate   information relating to the work carried out by staff, so that they were paid   correctly. This is obviously important information to ensure that employees   have confidence that they will be paid for the hours they work. The   respondent engaged a trial to introduce an IT system so that line managers   directly inputted the relevant information. This trial took place in   accordance with a collective agreement. Following the introduction of the new   system, the complainant’s role came to an end and she now works on a   production line on a day shift. She retains her former grade G entitlements   for a period of 18 months, also in line with the collective agreement. It was   accepted by the parties that it is very likely that should the complainant   obtain another grade G role, it will not be a day role but would be a   two-shift role.

I   appreciate the inconvenience the complainant may incur in losing her former   role and notwithstanding the grade guarantee, she will either take on a Grade   D day shift or a grade G role likely over two shifts. This represents a   substantial change to her working life and environment. I cannot, however,   make a recommendation in the terms sought by the complainant. There is a   longstanding collective agreement in place that addresses changes to working   practices and changes to grades. The respondent has complied with the terms   of the collective agreement in making changes in workplace practices and has   also dealt with the complainant in terms of the collective agreement. I   cannot, therefore, make the recommendation sought by the complainant.

CA-00011193-001

For the   reasons outlined above, I do not make the recommendation sought by the   complainant and the complainant is entitled to the grade guarantee for 18   months as per the collective agreement.

Industrial   Relations Act, section 13

Collective   agreement