Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Child Project Worker

A Children’s Service

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00013143-001

16/08/2017

This is a claim for continued access to Part Time Working .

The Claimant has worked as a Project Worker with her current employer since 2004.Her claim before the WRC arose from an unsuccessful application for unpaid leave under the Organisations Work Life Balance Policy. The Claimant has had a work life balance arrangement in accordance with the policy since June 2014. This mirrored a previous Parental Leave arrangement of two half days leave per week. The application in dispute referred to a commencement date of January, 2017.

IMPACT has sought that the claimant be permitted to realise her original request. The Claimant had been in close contact with her employer on the roll out of the shorter working week, where the shorter hours were sanctioned and continued to apply to her. She changed the rostering of these days from Thursday and Friday to Wednesday and Thursday for the duration of 2016.

The Claimant re-applied to extend her arrangement on 24 October, 2016.She applied to finish work on 2 half days at 1.30 pm where she had previously finished at 12.45 pm. This was not supported. An interim arrangement of 1 half day and a 35-hour week was agreed. The claimant continued to seek a 31.5 hr working week which comprise two half days off through the Grievance procedure. During this time, several engagements followed and the claimant was offered 1 or 2 full days off or one half day off per week. The claimant wished to secure two half days as outlined in her application. She submitted several supporting arguments in pursuance of this goal but was unsuccessful.

The Union, on behalf of the claimant sought a permanent reduction in the claimant’s hours to facilitate a recruitment opportunity to back fill these hours. This was not supported. The claim was referred to the WRC on 16 August. The claimant continues to work a 4.5-day week and the problem remains outstanding for the year 2017 and is anticipated to continue into 2018.

The Employer outlined that they operate a registered Charity working with Children and families and is focussed on these parties. The service is 90% funded by a Government body under service level agreement which specifies the quantum target of cases through twice yearly metrics and further reports. The service has had to activate a waiting list in recent years due to a surge in demand arising from a redrawing of catchment areas without additional resources. This waiting list currently stands at 7 months.

The claimant commenced employment as a Full-time Project worker, 37 hrs over 5-day s, in March 2004. The Claimant has requested a variety of working arrangements between March 2010 to date. She currently works 4.5 days per week.

1 3-day week reverting to full time.

2 Half days Wednesday and Thursday /Fridays.

These requests were considered and granted on a time limited basis, having regard for service imperatives and statutory and other leave requests. The Employer had been able to support all the claimant’s requests by working closely with her until the unsuccessful application for 2017.This was mainly due to having a slight surplus in Operational resources, which no longer exists.

The claimant was informed in her Supervision session in May 2016 that it might not be possible to extend her two half days off working arrangement beyond June 2016. The claimant was on sick leave from June 2016 to September 2016 and her two half days off were preserved as a back to work arrangement.

The Employer was not able to extend this arrangement and agreed to a 4.5-day week from January 2, 2017. The Employer engaged positively in the Grievance procedure with the claimant. The claimant was offered the options of:

1 4.5-day week with flexibility on timing of half day.

2 4 full days, some flexibility on the day off.

3 3 full days, consecutive.

The Employer had disagreed with some of the Unions submissions surrounding the refusal to allocate the hours requested by the claimant. They outlined the reasons behind the refusal.

The Employer was empathetic towards the stated needs of the claimant but had run into difficulty in seeking to marry employee requests across the team with their responsibility to the funders through service level agreement. Viable alternatives had been counter proposed.

The Claimant fully understood that a continuation of her shorter hours in 2017 was unlikely. The rationale for offering block days off was informed by the recruitment opportunities which arose for back filling.

The current situation is challenging operationally as the waiting list is closed to non-Government body referrals and 7 month waiting list is in place. Four Project workers are available to the service, the claimant is the sole part time worker. The Employer has no scope to secure additional cover within this cohort.

The Employer recognises the importance of Work Life balance and genuinely tries to help employees in this regard. This is the first occasion since March 2010 where the Employer has not been able to grant the claimant he requested hours in their entirety. The Employer has a 97% female workforce with a 51% take up for part time work .

The Employer has allocated three of its Managers to consider this application, cognisance has been taken of the claimant’s personal circumstances and alternative options have been offered. The Employer sought that the outcome of the Grievance procedure be upheld.

I have carefully considered both submissions in this case. I would like to record my appreciation for the contribution of both parties to the hearing. Both parties presented a very detailed and comprehensive case. It was clear to me that the parties had made strenuous efforts to resolve the situation locally. I was also struck of the very positive record of part time working in the role of Project Worker to date. However, it is clear to me that the parties have reached an impasse.

On the claimants level, she has outlined a very compelling personal case to be granted an extension of her two half days arrangement for 2017 .On the Employers level, the case is also compelling with regard to the lack of   immediate scope to grant the time as requested whilst proffering viable alternatives .What unites the parties is their clear   commitment to seeking to resolve the issue and what has separated them is the vacuum in   an identifiable and mutually acceptable way forward .

I have taken some guidance from the WRC Code of Practice in Access to Part Time Working:

Which outlines that access to part time working accords with the principle of minimizing the potential for indirect discrimination by introducing positive measures to eliminate obstacles and barriers and to encourage greater participation in employment.

The Employer in this is not opposed to part time working. The obstacle lies in the allocation of that part time work, previously addressed by way of a Parental Leave formation. The Claimant is seeking a mirror arrangement to that granted under the statutory framework of parental leave. The Employer is not able to accede to the request. I have considered the alternatives given to the claimant in the form of 3-4 day shorter working weeks. I can appreciate that these offers, while made in good faith have economic connotations for the claimant, which make them unviable.

The Employer in this case has complied with the WRC code of practice in how the application was processed.

Recommended best practice indicates that such a procedure should provide for the following elements: 

·         An application from the applicant outlining the reasons for the request to transfer from full-time to part-time working, indicating whether the request is of a temporary or permanent nature.

·         A reasonable timeframe to consider the request.

·         In considering the application both the employer and employee should take account of all factors both relevant to the organization and personal to the applicant. Relevant factors may include: 

1.        The personal and family needs of the applicant;

2.       The number of employees already availing of part-time work;

3.       Additional resources required to meet part-time cover and other business/operational needs of the organisation and implications of same;

4.       The urgency of the request;

5.       The period of time covered by the request;

6.       The employee’s legal rights and entitlements;

7.       The equal opportunities policy of the organisation;

8.       How the applicant’s proposed revised hours will fit with the tasks of his/her job and how these tasks will be performed during the period of part-time work;

9.       The implications, if any, for the applicant’s conditions of employment;

10.   The effect, if any, on the staffing needs of the organisation;

11.   Procedure for reviewing the arrangement.

·         The employer should issue a decision to the applicant. If the application is successful, details of how the arrangement will work should be discussed with the applicant (and other work colleagues if appropriate) and agreed. It is useful to draw up an agreement, signed by the parties, detailing any changes to terms and conditions of employment, for example income, annual leave, pension entitlements etc.

·         The consideration by an employer of a request for part-time work would have regard to the business needs of the organisation.

·         If the application is refused (or deferred) the grounds for doing so should be made clear to the applicant.

·         The applicant should have recourse to an appeals mechanism in the event that a mutually satisfactory solution is not reached, for example through the normal established grievance procedures in the organisation.

It should be noted that part-time working may not be appropriate to situations and an applicant should be prepared to accept a refusal, if there are good reasons for it. An employer may refuse a request for part-time working if it is satisfied that such arrangements would have an adverse effect on the operation of the business, lead to staffing difficulties or other relevant factors which might impact negatively on the business.

During my investigation, I was struck by the augmentation of additional client population without a commensurate increase in staffing. This now forms the kernel of the basis for the refusal to grant the extension to part time working. I find this scenario to be outside the claimants control and I urge the employer to seek to address this issue by way of the service level agreement and recruitment.

In the meantime, I understand that the claimant is seeking a long-term access to part time working. I can only address the claim as presented which refers to 2017 alone. I do not intend to probe into the operational schedules of the Organisation , but I note the reference at hearing to the recent improvements noted in the Organisations Referral form.

I have considered several options in this case. I am mindful that the claimant is a long server and had hit some personal difficulties over the last year. I am also mindful of the challenges faced by the Employer. However, on balance, I have found that the claimant needs this flexibility during her working life now for defined family reasons. She has however confirmed that she is prepared to offer more flexibility during her children’s school holidays.

On that basis, I have found that there is merit in the Dispute.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend that the Claimant continues to work her 4.5-day week as offered by the Employer.

However, I would recommend that a compromise is reached on the second half day on the following lines.

During Term time, the claimant should receive the second half day in a manner agreed with the Employer. However, during school holidays, the claimant should work the 4.5-day week in a manner agreed with the Employer. This recommendation is to address the annual year of 2017 alone.

Access to Part Time Working.