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-00016190-001

07/12/2017

The claimant has been employed as a Paramedic with the respondent since 2001 – he was aggrieved about being passed over for an overtime assignment – he alleged this was contrary to specific agreed procedures on the allocation of overtime. He submitted that the respondent’s explanation was not credible, was contrary to agreed procedures and that there was no medical basis for this arbitrary exercise of authority. He sought compensation for the loss incurred.

The union set out a chronology of the events leading up to the assignment of the shift in question to an Advanced Paramedic on the 4thOctober 2016. The claimant processed a grievance through the respondent’s procedures but it was not upheld owing to an instruction from a medical director that required that the shift be staffed by an advanced paramedic. It was emphasised that no reasoning for this instruction was made available to the claimant.

It was submitted that the employer’s actions were unfair and unreasonable and that if it were to be accepted that an employer could unilaterally set aside agreed procedures on foot of a directive from a medical director it would be open to the respondent to set aside any agreed procedure to the detriment of any employee “whilst merely referencing a supposed imperative which’ took precedence’ over the principles of fairness and equity which underpin the existing agreement”. It was submitted that the claimant should be fully reimbursed for the loss of the shift together with the award of sufficient remedy to prove effectively dissuasive of any recurrence on the part of the employer.

The respondent submitted that the claimant could not be rostered on the shift that night as there was a requirement for the attendance of an advanced paramedic – the respondent explained the rationale for the requirement of an Advanced Paramedic on the shift at issue – this had been a requirement of the Medical Director and It was submitted that this “takes precedence over any arrangements regarding the allocation of overtime”. It was submitted that the allocation of overtime is a management function and that the claimant had substantial levels of overtime available to him in 2016.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective position of the parties. On the basis of the evidence disclosed by the respondent I am satisfied that the respondent had a very compelling and credible explanation for the digression from agreed procedures on the allocation of overtime on this occasion. The respondent acknowledged that such a digression from normal procedures was a once in a blue moon event. I further acknowledge that the respondent was precluded from disclosing their rationale to the claimant in deference to the confidentiality of the claimant’s colleagues – it was submitted that the union had already expressed concerns about the potential compromising of the confidentiality of other staff within the service.

Notwithstanding this I do acknowledge the claimant’s sense of grievance and appreciate that it has been compounded by the absence of a rationale for the departure from practise and procedures on the allocation of overtime. I recommend in full and final settlement of this dispute that the parties engage with a view to devising a communications protocol to apply in the event of any future digressions - that protects the interest of all parties. Additionally, if it emerges through those discussions that a mutually acceptable formula is agreed to compensate any loss arising from such digressions from the norm in the future, the provisions of any such formula should be applied to the claimant retrospectively.