ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00005884
Dispute for Resolution:
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-00008184-001 | 15/11/2016 |
Venue: WRC; Lansdowne House, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4.
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/02/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 following 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 Complainant is employed as a Food Service Adviser since 1997. She has claimed that her employer refused her holiday request. They failed to follow proper procedure and did not properly investigate her request.
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
On 23rd February the Complainant submitted a holiday request for 3 days holidays and 2 rostered days off from 24th to 28th November 2016. On 1st March it was refused. Normally the employee making the request is given a reason for the refusal. She was not given a reason. She believed the refusal was not done in line with the normal procedure for refusals as it did not state the reason for the refusal. She appealed the refusal to the Store Manager stating that company policy had not been adhered to in relation to refusing her request and that she had been taking this particular period of time off on a regular basis since 2006. The Store Manager upheld the decision to refuse the holidays stating she had only taken that particular weekend off twice over six years. The Store Manager only took into consideration her work patterns over a 6 year period which she believes is unfair and insufficient. She asserts that she had taken that particular weekend as holidays six times from 2006 to 2015 inclusive. She believes the Store Manager did not sufficiently deal with the issue of company policy being adhered to. |
She instructed her union to write to the company seeking clarification on best practice – non compliance with company best practice and records to enquire why only 6 years were taken into account. The Store Manager responded under best practice that the response was given in a timely manner but best practice would be to give reasons for the refusal in future cases, under records he stated that records for a 5 year period were easily accessible but to have to go back further this would require archives to be searched, which would cause a significant delay. He also pointed out that recent years were more relevant.
It is her position that the Respondent didn’t sufficiently investigate the records which were available to them. The deviation from best practice was worrying and needed to be challenged to avoid future discrepancies. She also believes that the Respondent failed to take into consideration her need to reconcile her work and familial responsibilities. She requested a recommendation that she should have been given reasons for the refusal and that all other occasions that she took that time should have been considered.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
On 22nd March 2016 a national information and consultation meeting took place between the union, employer and employee representatives. At that meeting the Respondent identified the need to ban annual leave during specific periods throughout the year. These dates represented their busiest trading periods. On 27th April 2016 the Respondent wrote to the union identifying “Black Friday” as a date banned for all employees. On 26th September 2016 the Complainant wrote to the senior store manager detailing how on 23rd February 2016 she had submitted a holiday request for 24th to 28th November 2016. On 1st March 2016 her request had been refused because the period she sought included Black Friday. She had advised that she had been taking holidays on those dates on a regular basis and that there had not been any discussions between staff and management regarding that time. On 27th September the Store Manager responded that the decision to decline was based on a business basis which encompassed Black Friday. He also pointed out that the Respondent had considered this ban in January 2016 but had not communicated it until March 2016.He also pointed out that in the previous 6 years she had worked that time on 4 occasions. On 10th October 2016 the union wrote to the Respondent seeking clarification on the decision to decline. The Respondent replied on 13th October setting out their position as set out above in the Complainants position.
It is the Respondent’s position that they acted reasonably. They declined the request based on business needs. The Organisation of Working Time Sec 20 (1) states that “the times at which annual leave is granted to an employee shall be determined by his or her employer”. The Respondent has made every effort to facilitate the Complainant including suggesting alternative dates for annual leave. She has not suffered any financial loss as a result of the decline of her request. She has not sought any redress or remedy.
Findings
I note that the Complainant submitted a holiday request on 23rd February for 3 days holidays and 2 rostered days off from 24th to 28th November 2016.
I note that this was declined by the Respondent based on business needs.
I note that the Complainant did not accept this and appealed the decision.
I note that the appeal upheld the Respondent’s position.
I note that Sec 20(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act states “ The times at which annual leave is granted to an employee shall be determined by his or her employer having regard to work requirements and subject to
(a) the employer taking into account-
the need for the employee to reconcile work and any family responsibilities.
the opportunities for rest and recreation available to the employee.
Therefore I find that the Respondent not only has to consider the business needs they also have to consider the Complainant’s need to reconcile work and any family responsibilities.
I note that the Complainant has only had these dates off twice in the last six years.
I find that she had not established a pattern and so cannot rely upon that as a precedent.
I find that it was reasonable to review the previous six years only.
I note that the Respondent had offered to facilitate her within that period provided Black Friday was excluded.
Therefore I find that the Respondent acted reasonably in declining the request.
I note the union’s response to the Respondent on 21st September 2016 as follows “the union rejected the company’s position…to ban Black Friday week for annual leave. In the meantime members will co-operate, under, protest with Management’s decision to ban the Black Friday week for this coming November”.
I note that the Complainant is a member of the committee and was briefed on this position taken by her union.
I find that she did not accept her union’s position to work under protest.
I find that the Complainant as a committee member should support the position adopted by her union.
I find that she has not established that the Respondent has acted unreasonably.
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 requires that I make a decision in relation to the dispute.
Based upon the findings set out above I recommend that this complaint should fail.
Dated: 09/05/2017