Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An implementation specialist

An IT services provider

Representatives

  Self

Niamh Ní CheallaighIBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00023960-001

03/12/2018

The Complainant is an Implementation Specialist and was employed by the Respondent from 10^th April 2017 until 4^th December 2018.

The Respondent is a multinational corporation providing IT services to the business world. They are a leading provider of information technology, consultation and business process services.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 5^th March 2019.

The complaint as submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission reads as follows:

“Basically, I could not get a d ay off. Multiple applications were made, and all were either denied or simply left ‘pending’ indefinitely. Finally, one holiday was approved, and deducted from my leave allowance, the day after I worked it”.

The Complainant requested an annual leave day for 12^th November 2018 which unfortunately was not approved by his manager until 13^th November 2018 which meant that the Complainant attended work on 12^th November 2018.

On 16^th November the Complainant requested a meeting with the HR Department to query the situation as he had been at work on 12^th November and not on annual leave, he wanted to ensure he got his annual leave day back in his leave allocation.

On 3^rd December the Complainant emailed his director asking for his annual leave day back. The senior HR Associate responded that he was looking into the matter and had asked HR Shared Services to provide the Complainant’s annual leave allocation.

When the Complainant received the annual leave allocation, he disputed the number of days and asked the days to be clearly set out, this information was sent to the Complainant by HRSS.

In January 2019, whilst preparing to respond to the complaint it was discovered that the Complainant’s outstanding annual leave entitlement had not actually been paid to him. The senior HR Associate wrote to the Complainant to apologise for the error and to confirm the Complainant’s bank details in order to process the payment.

The complaint as submitted related to the process of applying for annual leave and the difficulties experienced by the Complainant in having annual leave requests approved, they were either refused or left pending / ignored.

The Respondent has addressed the issue of the failure by the Respondent to pay annual leave entitlement to the Complainant when he left employment.

The Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 grants employees 4 working weeks of annual leave in a leave year. I note that the Complainant had a contractual entitlement to 25 working days. In relation to the timing of annual leave section 20 of the Act states that:

(1)    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 –

(a)    To the employer taking into account –

                                  I.            The need for the employee to reconcile work and family responsibilities

                                II.            The opportunities for rest and recreation available to the employee

(b)    To the employer having consulted the employee or the trade union (if any) of which he or she is a member, not later than one month before the day on which the annual leave or, as the case may be, the portion thereof concerned is due to commence, and

(c)     To the leave being granted within the leave year to which it relates or, with the consent of the employee, within the 6 months thereafter.

There has been no breach of this legislation.

The difficulties experienced by the Complainant stem from the relationship he had with his manager, this was alluded to at the hearing.

The Respondent, no doubt, have their own internal policies/procedures for managing employee holiday requests. They might ensure that such policies and procures are being adhered to by all employees and managers and that holiday requests are being responded to in a timely fashion.

Having considered the complaint and listened to the parties at hearing I am satisfied that there have been no breaches of the Act and in this context, I must decide that the complaint, as presented, is not well founded.

As outlined above.