Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Nurse

A Care Home

Representatives

Siptu

 Managing Director, Respondent

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

18/06/2020

The complainant was employed as a nurse by the respondent.  He attended a training course which the respondent contends was at his own request and was not a course considered to be essential training for the complainant.  The complainant left the company shortly afterwards and claims that he was not given the appropriate expenses for his attendance at the course

The complainant was employed as a nurse by the respondent company from 30 October 2018 to 1 May 2020. He was paid €20 per hour and worked a 36-hour week. The complainant was asked by the respondent to attend a four-day ‘Train the Trainer’ course in Dublin which ran from Monday 10 February 2020 to Thursday 13 February. The course fees and accommodation costs were paid for by the respondent, but expenses for food and travel were withheld, on the grounds that the company did not pay for ‘non-mandatory training.

The managing director of the respondent company told SIPTU by e-mail of 30 April 20202 that ‘your member was granted unpaid leave from 10/02/2020 – 13/02/2020 in order to attend a training course that he wished to pursue as further education for his own benefit. The company did however as gesture of good will offer to pay for this course.’ The complainant denies this and questions how likely a company in the position of the respondent would be to pay course fees and accommodation costs for training which it did not need and which was being undertaken as an extra-mural activity of an employee.

The complainant’s requests for payment were not answered and the employment ended on 1 May 2020. The complainant seeks a recommendation that the respondent company pay him an amount of compensation of no less than €187.22 in respect of failure to reimburse travel expenses. This figure is based on Civil Service mileage rates.

The complainant and his union representative have always maintained that the company approved of the training which is not the case. The complainant overheard a conversation that the program was running for other members of the nursing staff and he was not considered at this time for the program. He approached the Managing Director(MD) on more than one occasion and asked if he could attend. The MD conceded in the end as he suggested he could benefit from it. The respondent’s thinking at the time was that it might act as a good retention tool as nursing staff were very difficult to find. The company had also already paid for the program and the person who was scheduled to go on the program had withdrawn from attending. The purpose of the training program was to facilitate a tender with the HSE, where the company had to demonstrate that key staff had been through this program. The complainant was not considered a key member of staff and he was not included in the tender, even after the training. The MD never confirmed with the complainant that he would be paid for his time as he was doing it on a voluntary basis. The MD never confirmed that the company would pay any expenses in relation to this. 

 The company’s training policy states that if you get training from the company when you leave within a very short time, the company has the right to recoup all costs in relation to training. The complainant left the company on the 1st of May 2020, a mere 6 weeks after the program that he volunteered to attend. He was not asked to refund the cost of the training. 

It is clear from the evidence given by the parties that they had different understandings of the basis on which the training was provided and what support the employee would be given.  From the evidence given I am satisfied that the only outstanding matter related to travel  expenses.  The employee has referenced the Civil Service Mileage scheme in support of his calculation of money owed.  It is a requirement of that scheme that travel expenses be approved in advance of undertaking the travel and, where possible, that public transport be the preferred option.  The employee did not seek approval for the use of his car to attend the training course.  However, where an employer is supporting attendance at a training course, it would be good management to make sure that there was no ambiguity or misunderstanding as to what the attendee would receive by way of financial support.  It is not enough to say that the matter was not discussed.  I note that the employer did not seek to recoup any money due to the employee leaving the company shortly after the course.  However, this is a separate issue and it was up to the employer to decide whether or not to follow up on the matter.  I do not believe it would be appropriate to offset any potential recoupment against expenses incurred by the employee at the time of the training.

In all of the circumstances I recommend that the employee be paid the cost of public transport in respect of his attendance at the training course which I estimate to be €40.

I recommend that the employer pay the employee €40 in full and final settlement of the claim

Industrial relations.  Travel expenses for attendance at a training course