FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OUR LADY'S HOSPICE AND CARE SERVICES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. An appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation no: r-147760-ir-14/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was taken ill in 2009 with stress and, following a letter from his Doctor which asked that he be put on a normal shift, the Hospice placed him on a Monday to Friday roster. This denied him access to premium payments for weekend work.
- The Employer said the Claimant was referred for an Occupational Assessment in June 2010. It recommended that he work a 5-day shift. At that time the Claimant specifically asked for a Monday to Friday pattern. He worked this pattern for 3.5 years without complaint.
- This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 22nd April 2015 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- I have considered the submissions of the parties. I am at a loss to understand why the Claimant took such a long time to raise this issue. The Respondent has stated that his request could not be granted if it meant disrupting the existing working arrangements of his colleagues. This was the outcome of a grievance appeal.
From the evidence presented to me, the respondent has been very fair and reasonable and made every effort to accommodate the Claimant where possible. It is ultimately, the Respondent’s right to manage the running of the organisation as they see fit and have reasonably accommodated the Claimant to date.
I do not find the claim well founded and it fails.
- I have considered the submissions of the parties. I am at a loss to understand why the Claimant took such a long time to raise this issue. The Respondent has stated that his request could not be granted if it meant disrupting the existing working arrangements of his colleagues. This was the outcome of a grievance appeal.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th July 2015.
WORKER’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant is being treated less favourably than his colleagues.
2. The Claimant requested a 5/7 shift pattern for medical reasons but did not request Monday to Friday.
3. The Employer has put forward no objective justification for refusing the Claimant access to premium earnings.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant was on sick leave in 2010 for work-related stress. An Occupational Assessment recommended he work a 5/7 shift pattern.
2. The Claimant specifically asked for a Monday to Friday pattern. The hospice accommodated him in this regard.
3. It was not until February 2014, nearly 3.5 years after his initial change, that he made a request to work weekends.
DECISION:
Having given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of both parties to this appeal, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Decision.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
29th July, 2015Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.