Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

SIPTU

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00010677-001

06/04/2017

The Complainant, who has been employed by the Respondent since 1979 was transferred to his current role in May 2015.

The Complainant states that since his transfer to his current role he has been excluded from working on Public Holidays when they occur. The Complainant contends that he is being treated differently to his other colleagues in his department, all of whom have access to working on public holidays.

The Complainant contends that he was never given a satisfactory explanation for his exclusion from the roster on public holidays. Consequently, the Complainant pursued a grievance in relation to his situation.

The Complainant claims that while his grievance was not upheld at the time (March 2016), the Respondent undertook to conduct a review of the public holiday roster to determine current service needs, with a view to apportioning it equally among staff. However, the Complainant contends that, despite several requests from him, this review has still not taken place.

In conclusion, it was submitted on behalf of the Complainant that he is entitled to an equal share of the public holiday roster in line with his colleagues and that he should be compensated for his loss of earning, retrospective to May 2015, when his transfer to his current role took place.

The Respondent contends that the Complainant was advised, prior to his taking up the role, of the conditions attaching to the position, including the fact that he would not be on the roster for public holidays.

The Respondent stated that they have initiated discussions with the Complainant’s Trade Union in relation to introducing a new roster to make more efficient use of the staffing resources available given changes that have occurred in the area in the recent past.

The Respondent contends that as part of that process and when the proposed roster change is concluded, the Complainant can have access to the public holiday roster.

In conclusion, the Respondent contends that, given the matter was discussed with and accepted by the Respondent prior to his commencement of his current role and that discussions have been commenced, under the Public Service Agreement, which will resolve the matter, the current claim should not be conceded.

Having carefully considered the contributions made by both sides at the Hearing, it would appear that a custom and practice evolved over time, which resulted in the Respondent having to roster greater numbers of staff on Public Holidays than were required to service its needs or that were required on normal working days.

This in turn has led to a situation where, in an effort to control costs, the Respondent excluded all new appointees to the role from the Public Holidays roster. This included the Complainant and two other members of staff appointed after him.

I find that the current situation is neither fair nor reasonable on either the Complainant or the Respondent. I am satisfied that the Public Holiday roster should be divided equally between all staff and, subject to personal preference, no staff member should be excluded from the roster.

I am also satisfied that it is unreasonable to require the Respondent to staff a roster above and beyond the clearly defined service requirements on any given day and that includes public holidays.

With regard to the Complainant’s request for compensation for loss of earnings as a result of his exclusion from the Public Holidays Roster, I believe there to be some merit to his claim in this regard. However, I also believe there to be some basis to the evidence submitted by the Respondent with regard to the fact that the Complainant was made aware, prior to his taking up the job, that the Public Holiday roster would not be available to him.

However, notwithstanding the above, I note that, following the raising of a grievance in relation to this matter by the Complainant, in March 2016, the Respondent undertook to review the public holiday roster with a view to apportioning the roster in such a manner that would facilitate the Complainant’s participation in line with that of his colleagues. I am satisfied that this would have created a not unreasonable expectation for the Complainant that he would be included in the roster from that point onwards.

It had been submitted on behalf of the Complainant that he was likely to have been allocated half the available Public Holidays had he been on the roster.

Consequently, my calculations in relation to compensation are based on the potential Public Holidays the Complainant could reasonably have expected to work in the period from March 2016 to date (i.e. 50% of the twelve public holidays in that period).

Having carefully considered the evidence adduced/contributions made at the hearing and in line with the findings/considerations set out above, I recommend that the Complainant be given immediate access to the Public Holidays roster, at no additional cost to the Respondent.

In addition, I recommend that the Complainant receive a payment of €708.60, which represents payment for six public holidays at a daily rate of €118.10. This sum is subject to the normal statutory deductions applicable to pay.