Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Paramedic

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-00025205-001

23/01/2019

The Complainant was at a loss of overtime shifts due to an alleged erroneous finding by Management that she was unable to complete a shift due to fatigue.

The Complainant works as part of a two person crew. Her contract operates on a basic 39 hour week with an opportunity to work 1 to 2 overtime shifts per week which shift can equal 12 hours double time. In June 2018 she and her colleague were working a night shift 8pm to 8am and they attended 4 call outs. A fifth call was received at 6.36am. The Complainant’s crew colleague advised that he could not attend as he was fatigued. This was communicated to the National Control at 6.43am and the crew was stood down. The Complainant attended work as usual in the following weeks and worked one overtime shift for the following three weeks namely 9th, 18th and 27th June 2018.   She was on annual leave for the month of July.   Subsequently Management sent correspondence dated 3rd August 2018 to the Complainant advising her that due to fatigue reported by her colleague on 8th June 2018 that she was being instructed not to carry out any overtime shifts until she was assessed by Occupational Health.   Following correspondence between the Complainant and Management, after what was effectively a unilateral ban by Management on the Complainant working overtime, the requirement to attend Occupational Health was rescinded. It is argued that through no fault of her own the Complainant was effectively imposed with a sanction and when the Respondent went through a fact finding exercise realised that the Complainant had no case to answer.   The Complainant seeks compensation that reflects the loss of overtime and an amount sufficient to deter Management from behaving in this manner again.

The Respondent gave a verbal submission summarised as follows:                                                                       The call out to which the Complainant and her colleague could not respond was a serious incident involving cardio arrest which ranks as one of the most serious calls. The area the Complainant was in was the nearest.   Management was advised that the “crew cited fatigue”. It is incumbent on Management to ensure duty of care to employees and that is why the Complainant was initially being referred to Occupational Health. There was a backlog in OH and the Complainant did not have to attend. Following some more enquiries, it was established that it was her colleague and not the Complainant who cited fatigue. The Respondent examined the pattern of overtime and found that the Complainant, while not obliged to work overtime, could have worked in or around 1 overtime shift per month. This was based on an examination of the pattern which showed 13 overtime shifts in a 23 month period.   The Respondent offered the Complainant some overtime shifts of in or around 3 or 4 to make up the shortfall.

Overtime loss