Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Clerical Officer

A Healthcare Provider

Representatives

Mike Mcnamara FÓRSA Trade Union

A HR Manager

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-00022738-001

22/10/2018

The Complainant alleged she was assigned the wrong work hours per week when she commenced employment in 2001 and seeks compensation as a result and her current working hours to be reduced accordingly and proportionately.

The Complainant commenced employment in November 2001 as a Clerical Officer Grade 3 and assigned the duties of a Ward Clerk and her hours were set up as 35 per week.

In July 2018 the Complainant learned she was originally set up as a Clerical Officer/Clerk Typist on the payroll system.

The Complainant further established that in July 2018 her hours of work were changed on the system to reflect a 35 hours per week.

It came to the attention of the Complainant that the standard hours for a Clerk/Typist were 32 hours and 55 minutes and while her terms and conditions were silent on the number of hours per day she had to work it stipulated that “You will be required to work a 5 day week. Depending on the services to which you are assigned you may have to work extra hours and/or on a rota, and will be compensated accordingly.”

The Complainant further alleges that she was never compensated for working the extra hours as provided or in her contract of employment and furthermore her hours of work subsequently increased under the provisions of the Public Service Agreements to 37 hours per week.

In October 2016 following a reassignment the Complainant learned that other clerical staff were working 35 hours and 10 minutes.

From enquires the Complainant learned that other Clerical staff who commenced work prior to 2008 worked only 32 hours and 55 minutes. From 2008 new entrants or promoted staff worked 35 hours per week.

It is alleged by the Complainant that since the commencement of her employment she has been working above her contracted hours and she seeks compensation accordingly. The Complainant also seeks a Recommendation that she is currently working above her contracted hours and seeks to have the contracted hours reduced accordingly on a pro rata basis (since May 2017 the Complainant has been on a reduced working week at her request).

The claim is denied by the Respondent.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on November 5th 2001 as a Temporary Clerical Officer. She received permanent appointment orders in July and December 2002.

She was assigned to the role of Ward Clerk in 2001 until her transfer in 2016 to another Department.

In 2001 the Complainant was set up on the payroll system at 35 hours per week which was the standard hours for her role at that time.

In 2013 the Complainants contracted hours increased as part of the Haddington Road Agreement to 37 hours per week.

The Complainant voluntarily decreased her hours to 29.6 hours per week in 2017.

In 2016 the Complainant applied for and was successful in transferring to a new role. This role was on the same terms and conditions she had at the time.

In no instant has the Complainant raised any issue regarding her hours of work since 2001 or on her transfer in 2016. The Respondent queries why the Complainant did not bring a claim at any time in the last 17 years and is now seeking to mend her hand by lodging a trade dispute and that the delay is an inordinate and inexcusable delay by the Complainant that could be construed as prejudicial to the Respondent.

The Respondent denies the claim and the Complainant was contracted for 35 hours, worked for 35 hours and was paid for 35 hours.

In the course of the Hearings on this issue a central point made by the Complainant to support her claim was that she could name as Comparators people who started at a similar time as her in similar roles that were working less hours than her from their start of their employment. The Complainant was afforded every opportunity and at considerable time and effort by the Respondent and the WRC to nominate the Comparators and for the review of the Comparators to take place.

The Complainant provided at a subsequent Hearing to the initial Hearing a list of 10 names she identified to support her claim that these staff were on less work hours than her work hours and that she should have been on 32 hours and 55 minutes per week and not 35 hours per week. The Respondent conducted a detailed review going back 17 years of the Comparators hours of work. In summary, the analysis showed that 4 staff started the same time as the Complainant in the same roles and all were contracted for 35 hours per week. 5 staff started prior to the Complainant in the same roles and worked 35 hours per week. One staff member was not in a similar role to the Complainant and therefore was not a suitable Comparator.

Based on this information, which was not contested by the Complainant at the final Hearing, I see no justification to recommend in favour of the Complainant on either of her two issues and I find her complaint is not well founded.

Hours of Work