Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Giulia  Baio

Telus International

Representatives

Ronan Daly Jermyn Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 15 of the  European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006 - S.I. No. 507 of 2012

CA-00043279-001

26/03/2021

The complaint was employed from the 25th November2019 to the 3rd January 2021 as an TNS specialist Layoff. She was paid a salary of €22950 per annum.

The complainant is seeking payment for 5 days annual leave which the respondent has refused to pay her.

The complainant stated that on the 25th/26th November’20 she requested to take her remain 5 holidays. but the respondent was not able to facilitate her. The complainant requested that she be allowed to carry over the 5 days into the 2021 but this was refused.

On the 18th January the complainant raised a grievance about the respondent’s decision not to allow her carry over holidays. But this grievance was not upheld by the investigating team.

The respondent has a clear policy on holidays that all holidays must be taken within the holiday year.

The complainant’s complaint was investigated remotely on the 29th January 2021 and was attended by HR Manager Dan O Sullivan and Operation Manager Simona Fedinova who was assigned as part of the investigating panel.

At the meeting, the complaint did not wish to have any employee representative present. It was also confirmed to the complainant stated she was on a temporary layoff status at this hearing and would be unpaid time. In response to the complainant’s allegations regarding a number of team members getting Xmas off and annual swaps allowed where she was denied her holidays. SF advised that the respondent offers annual leave on a first come first served basis in terms of offering all team members a fair chance to book annual leave. It was submitted that the complainant was denied annual leave on two occasions in December 2020.

On the 11th March 2021 the respondent issued the investigation outcome letter to the complainant. It was stated that careful consideration was given to the facts of the case and in particular, it was acknowledged that while the respondent does empathise with the complainant given the year it had been, it was decided that the grievance was not upheld.

The respondent submits that the complaint had ample opportunity to take the holidays but she did not do so and in accordance with the respondent policies the complaint forfeited the holidays which were due to her.

It is submitted that the respondent has fully complied with its obligations under the Organisation of Working time Act 1997 in relation to the complainant and that no breach of the complainant’s rights has occurred, as alleged by the complainant.

I have examined all documentation that was submitted to the WRC

I find that the respondent has a clear policy on annual leave, it has also a policy to allow a carryover of a maximum of 5 days for a 3-month period.

I find that the complaint did try to take holiday on the 25th, 26th November 2020 but due to business requirement theses holidays could not be facilitated by the respondent

I find that complainant tried to carry over her holidays to 2021 or be given time to take them in 2020.

I find that because of the unusual circumstances of the year involved an exception could have been made.

I find taking all circumstances into account

I find the Complaint to be well founded and I recommend that she be paid her 5 days holidays.