Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint    seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7    of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00011941-001

16/06/2017

The complainant commenced work with the Respondent on 24^th   June 2016 and was employed as a Security Officer. He was paid a gross weekly   rate of €462.25. His last day of employment with the Respondent was on 2^nd   June 2017.

The complainant states that he worked as a Security   Officer on site for a client of the Respondent. He contends that he was not   notified that he was required to change work location to another site. The   complainant’s position is that he attended for work on 2^nd June   2017 and was told that he was no longer required to work on that site and   that he would be required to change work location. The complainant contends   that he became annoyed that the changes had not been notified to him in   advance and left the employment immediately on that day.

The complainant contends that there was no further contact   from the employer until 9^th June 2017 at which point he was   contacted and offered alternative work. The complainant’s position is that   the alternative offer was not suitable to him as it was “a day here and a day   there” with no full time hours offered.

The Respondent contends that its operation on specific   sites is subject to client requirements and that unfortunately in this case   the client did not notify the Respondent of the required changes until 26^th   May 2017. The Respondent contends that it tried to make contact with the   complainant prior to the commencement of his shift on 2^nd June   2017 but was unable to do so. When the complainant attended for work on 2^nd   June 2017 he was informed of the changes but chose to return his keys and   leave the employment. The Respondent’s   position is that the complainant is an excellent Security Officer and it is   regrettable that he refused to consider the relocation and chose to leave his   employment.

The Respondent contends that the Security Manager was on   annual leave on 2^nd June 2017 and on his return on 9^th   June 2017, contacted the complainant and offered him a full time position at   an alternative client site in Dublin city centre. It is the Respondent’s   position that the complainant indicated that he was no longer interested in   working for the Company and was seeking employment outside of the Security   Industry.

The Respondent stated that it acted appropriately and in   compliance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and the mobility   clause contained in the complainant’s contract of employment.

In relation to this matter I accept that the Respondent   had only been notified of the required changes a matter of days before the   events of the 2^nd June 2017 and had tried to contact the worker   prior to the commencement of his shift on that day. The Security Manager of   the Respondent confirmed that the complainant was fully paid for the week in   question as a result of having no work from 2^nd June 2017 until he   was offered the alternative role on 9^th June 2017.

At the hearing the complainant said that he had not   received his P45 and that there was also outstanding holiday pay due to him.   I note that the Respondent gave a commitment in relation to issuing the P45   and paying any outstanding holiday entitlements that are due to the   complainant.

In relation to the requirement to relocate to other sites,   I find that this was in compliance with the complainant’s terms and   conditions of employment. I also find that if the complainant had remained in   the employment of the Respondent his concerns about the suitability or   otherwise of alternative locations could have been raised in line with   procedures.

Section 5(1)(a) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 provides that the   employer must notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the   change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than

(a)    1   month after the change takes effect

In the instant case, as the complainant left his   employment with immediate effect on the 2^nd June 2017, I do not   find that the Respondent acted at variance with the provisions of the   legislation.

In all the circumstances of this case, I find that the   employer did not breach the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.   Accordingly I declare that the complaint is not well founded.

Notification of changes, alternative location