Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Employee

Public Body

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-00019698-001

11/06/2018

The Complainant had a specialised skill for which she received an allowance. Following a cut in her hours she felt she could no longer work in the specialised centre in which she was placed. Her allowance was withdrawn. It is claimed that the allowance should be restored.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in 1980. She upskilled herself in specialised treatment for cancer patients and performed the role of Lymphatic Drainage therapist in the Oncologist Department since 2003. She was paid an acting allowance which was based on the difference between the attendant scale point and the mid-point of the Physiotherapist scale.     Subsequently a specialised cancer care centre was opened in 2004 and the oncology unit was closed in the hospital.   In November 2016 the Complainant was informed by the Director of Services that her hours were being reduced by a quarter from 19.5 to 14 hours per week. The Complainant sought reassignment into the hospital carrying out Lymphatic Drainage however the Oncology Unit was closed. The Respondent removed payment of the acting allowance in December 2016. The Complainant was on a period of sick leave and returned to work in the hospital as a Multi-Task Attendant in August 2017. It is argued that as the Complainant held the acting allowance for over 13 years and the allowance is pensionable it should be restored and consolidated in accordance with Clause 2.31 of the Haddington Road Agreement and regularised in accordance with the terms of Circular 017/2013.

The Complainant was afforded an opportunity to work in a specialised area where she was facilitated with training overseas to allow her to develop her interest in the area.   She worked in a special cancer care centre and she was paid an allowance on top of her salary as a MTA.   That arrangement came to an end when the Complainant decided to resign from her position effective from 1st December 2016. She could have remained on in the Centre on two days a week where her salary and allowance would have continued pro rata. The Complainant, despite advice insisted on resigning and sought to be placed in a role in the main hospital preferably in household. No vacancy was available but she was facilitated with a role in catering pending vacancies arising in household. The claim that she should retain the allowance for a position she held in the centre is unrealistic and unreasonable.   In essence the Complainant was instrumental in losing the allowance by her decision to resign her role.

The Complainant resigned her position effective from 1st December 2016 and consequently lost the allowance attached to that position. I note that the Circular 017/2013 does not have applicability in this case. She no longer holds the position and the Circular does not apply.   I note however, that the circumstances in which the Complainant found herself where her hours were being reduced were somewhat unusual. I find that there appears to have been no discussion with the Respondent and the Services Manager in order to examine the situation so that the Complainant would not be subjected to unilateral action. It was this unilateral action which led to the Complainant’s decision to resign her post and return to MTA role. It is regrettable that the Complainant who built up a skill and contributed to this important area and held the allowance for over 13 years should feel aggrieved and at a loss of appreciation by the Respondent. I note however, the Respondent in this case did appreciate the skill and contribution of the Complainant and there is some willingness to see if any future possibilities will arise. To that end, I recommend that a discussion be held with the Complainant and her Trade Union Representative to ascertain any future possibility of placement of the Complainant in the area or areas in which her skill might be utilised. In the meantime, as a gesture of goodwill, the Respondent should offer the Complainant a compensatory lump sum of €1,000 for the initial handling of the situation which could have been handled in a more sensitive manner.