ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021385
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A local authority employee | A local authority |
Representatives | Local authority management. |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00028199-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant is one of a group of six local authority employees who are employed on nightshift within the local authority premises. The Complainant commenced employment on 05th May 2006. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was called to a disciplinary interview outside of his normal working hours which are 10.00pm to 06.00am Sunday to Friday. The Complainant believes that in arranging the time of the hearing during his daily rest period the Respondent is in breach of Section 11 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – Daily Rest Period: 11. “An employee shall be entitled to a rest period of not less than 11 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours during which he or she works for his or her employer.” Background. After an increase in staffing numbers within the Depot an issue arose in relation to the parking of staff member’s cars. After refusing an instruction from an inspector to remove cars from the premises the inspector ordered all staff off site and closed the facility. Following an investigation, the Complainant and five colleagues were invited to attend a disciplinary interview. It should be noted that the disciplinary interviews were to be held during the ‘daily rest period’ hours. The Complainant was represented by an official from SIPTU trade union who asked what arrangements would be made to compensate the Complainant for having to attend during his daily rest period. Management eventually offered 3 hours i.e. 1 hour for travelling to the meeting, 1 hour for the meeting and 1 hour travelling home from the meeting. The Complainant does not believe that this offer is adequate and instead thinks that the normal agreed protocol for leave granted to night shift employees for attending all day courses should have been offered in this instance. The Complainant believes that the Respondent was in breach of their own Disciplinary Policy ‘Employee Rights Section’ where it states: “staff members natural and statutory rights will be upheld at all times in the operation of the disciplinary procedure”. In this instance this did not happen. It should be pointed out that the designated investigation officer could have come to the shift to interview the Complainant during his normal working hours as has happened in the past. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The facts leading to the disciplinary process being invoked are not in dispute. The complaint was lodged only after a claim for compensatory time off had been received from SIPTU. The claim was for a full day leave which was deemed excessive by the Respondent for attendance at a half hour interview. Three hours were eventually offered after some discussion between management and union. The offer was declined by the union and the claim for a full day’s compensation was reiterated. The Respondent accepts that three of the six complainants did not receive an 11 hour break however would also point out that instances like this happen very rarely and that, in the past, in similar situations, night shift staff have attended day-time interviews accompanied by their trade union representative without any such claims being made and a precedent has thereby been set. Furthermore, the Respondent would argue that attendance for a disciplinary interview could not be considered as attendance at work in the normal meaning of that phrase. The Respondent accepts that the three employees for whom this claim is relevant would be entitled to compensatory time off for attending for disciplinary interview during their rest time. However, the Respondent also believes that the claim for a full day’s compensatory leave is excessive. Management within the section conducted the disciplinary process in the normal way in this instance in line with previous norms and were within their rights to conduct the interviews at the time and place as occurred on 26th April 2019. By lodging the original claim, the union has implied an acceptance that management were within their rights to interview the employees when they did but that the employees were thereby entitled to compensatory time off. The issue here is, therefore, a matter of how much compensatory time off is to be granted. The Respondent respectfully suggests that the claim for a full day is excessive in the circumstances and that this claim should not be upheld. |
|
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully considered the complaint. The facts are not in dispute. The question to be answered is whether the 3 hours pay offered by the Respondent as compensatory rest is sufficient. I believe the Complainant’s claim for a full day is excessive and believe that such a claim is not well-founded. The Complainant should accept the offer of three hours as offered by the Respondent. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
As outlined above |
Dated: November 25th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
Daily Rest Breaks. |