ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031874
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Senior Butcher | Retail Butcher |
Representatives | Mr. Vivian Cullen, SIPTU | Mr. Seamus Storan |
Dispute:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00042417-001 | 11/02/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/06/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 1st September 1976. At all times the Worker was employed as a butcher, in more recent times the Worker took on some managerial duties. The Worker is a full-time, permanent employee in receipt of a weekly payment of €770. On 1st February 2021 the Worker lodged the present dispute with the Commission. Here, he alleged that the Employer had removed him from a management position and effectively demoted him by moving him to a different location. By response the Employer submitted that the Worker frequently moved between locations, and his expertise was better utilised in the busier, larger location. By correspondence received on 2nd March 2021, the Employer elected to positively engage in the dispute. A hearing in relation to this matter was convened and finalised on 3rd June 2021. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Both parties issued written submissions in advance of the hearing and expanded upon the same directly at the hearing. No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Worker stated that he had been employed by the Employer since 1976, a period of over almost 45 years. Throughout his employment, the Worker moved between the Employer’s various locations. In recent times, the Worker assumed managerial functions cumulating with his being appointed the sole manager of a city centre location. In or around April 2020, the Worker was approached by a member of senior management who asked him to cover for another manager in a suburban location that had become ill. The Worker agreed to this move on the understanding that it would be temporary and he would return to the city centre location in due course. At the suburban location, the Worker was one manager amongst three, while in the city centre location he was the sole manager in charge of the unit. Following the return of the manager to the suburban location, the Worker sought to return to the city centre premises. This request was denied by the Employer, who advised that the Worker’s skill set would be better utilised in the busier location and that the turnover in the city centre location had been declining for a number of years. The Worker submitted that that he moved to the suburban location in good faith and on the understanding that he would return in due course. He submitted that the move equated to a demotion for him as he was no longer the sole manager in the premises. He further added one of the other managers was considered the senior manager in the premises and that he was effectively working under the direction of a colleague. Finally, the Worker submitted that he was being personally blamed for a general downward trend in city centre retail. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
By response, the Employer submitted that throughout the Worker’s employment, he moved between the Employer’s various locations as and when the needs of the business required same. This flexibility is expressly stated in the Worker’s contract and has been a feature of the Worker’s employment to date. In April 2020 the Worker was asked to move to a suburban location to cover a manager’s absence. This move involved no loss of status or income. Rather, it was submitted that the Worker had a great potential earning power in the suburban location given the increased turnover in same. While the Worker was engaged in the suburban location, a review was carried out of the Employer’s city centre location. This location had experienced a general decline over the last number of years and had become a financial drain on the rest of the group. In response to the same, it was determined that a change of management in the city centre location was necessitated implement a business plan and reverse the downward trend. On this basis the Worker’s application to return to the location was denied on the return of the manager for whom he was covering. The Employer submitted that the recent move experienced by the Worker was simply the latest of a long-standing series of such moves. The Employer submitted that they have a right to move their employees according to the needs of the business, and that move in question was necessitated by clearly defined needs. In this regard, it was submitted that the Worker was engaged in the suburban location for a number of years previously. It was denied that the move represented any form of diminution of status. The Worker had become one manager amongst three, but the location was much busier and required three managers. It was denied that the Worker was being blamed for the down-turn in the business, rather it was submitted that the move was designed to best complement the Worker’s strengths as an employee. In this regard it was noted that the Worker was held in excellent regard by the Employer and that his skills were a valuable asset to the Employer’s busiest location. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The first aspect of this dispute involves the Worker’s contention that the move from the city centre location represented a diminution in status. In this regard I note that while he initially agreed to the move, in full knowledge of what the move would entail, this was agreed on the understanding that he would return to his former location. In agreeing the temporary move in the first instance, the Worker should be commended for demonstrating flexibility that seemed to typify his lengthy employment. While I note the Employer’s contention that the move did not actually represent a loss of status, I find that I cannot agree with this submission. The Worker had reached a point in his career where he was effectively in charge of the operation of one of the Employer’s most well-known units. A move to a unit where he was one manager amongst three cannot be seen as anything other than a diminution of status, especially when the Worker had to report to one of those managers. Notwithstanding the same, I note that the Worker’s rate of pay was not affected by the move, nor was it any more inconvenient for him given his place of residence. In addition to the foregoing, I find that the initial rationale for the move offered by the Employer to be somewhat duplicitous. It may well have been the case the Worker would have refused to move had he known the same was to be permanent, this is evidenced by his insistence in moving back to the location on the return of the manager for whom he was covering. While I appreciate the Employer has a duty to ensure that their sites are profitable, this must be done in conjunction with the managers of those sites. In this instance, it appears that the Employer used the illness of the manager in the suburban location to insert a new manager in the city centre location. From the evidence provided it appeared that there was no, or minimal, discussion with the Worker regarding the difficulties facing the location and the implementation of the business plan to reverse the decline. Again I note, and do not disbelieve, that the Worker was held in high regard by the Employer who wished to employ his talents elsewhere. Nevertheless, such a move should have been undertaken following a period of consultation with the Worker and in consideration of his views in relation to the same. Having regard to the totality of the foregoing, I find that the Worker’s complaint is well founded. Regarding my recommendation in this regard, I note that the Worker has requested that he be moved back to the city centre location. In considering the request I am cognisant of the manager who currently holds the role whose employment will be disrupted, or even terminated, following such a move. I also note that the Worker had been engaged in the suburban location for some time now. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that compensation is the most appropriate from of remedy. In this regard I recommend that the Employer pays the worker the sum of €3,000 in compensation in settlement of the dispute. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
CA-00042417-001 – Dispute under the Industrial Relations Act I find in favour of the Worker. I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of the €3,000 in compensation. |
Dated: 13th September 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Place of Work, Unilateral Change |