ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035201
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Hospital |
Representatives | Richie Browne Unite the Union | David Green Employee Relations Department |
Complaint/Dispute:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Industrial Relations Act 1969 | CA-00048521-002 | 22/09/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/05/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint/dispute.
Background:
The worker was in a role as Supervisor since 2017. In 2021 she was informed that she would be regularised in her position provided she would work 5 over 7 shifts to include weekends. The dispute she has with the employer is that she should not be forced to work weekends. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker was in the position of Acting Supervisor for over 4 years. It is argued that the provisions of Circular 068/2020 should have applied to her and that she should have been regularised without any change to her contractual hours which in her case was Monday to Friday. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The background to the issue is that in or around 2017 there was a need for a temporary position as Assistant Domestic Supervisor, and following interview the worker was placed in the position. The position was to be part-time, and for a short duration so no approval was sought. The tenure was extended due to various reasons such as mental health commission inspections and audits and the role continued in an unapproved manner. Following a Conciliation Conference and a meeting on the matter with the worker and her union, the worker understood that should she not accept the terms of the Band 1 Support Supervisor appointment, she would return to her substantive post. The job specification and terms of appointment including the requirement to work 5 over 7 shifts was given to the worker and her union on 8 November 2021. She declined the offer on 26 November 2021. The terms of Circular 003/2009 “Matching working patterns to service needs..” provide that staff promoted are required to work agreed rosters/on call arrangements as advised by their line manager. It is argued that the terms of this circular apply, and not Circular 068/2020 as the worker was not eligible under the terms of that circular. |
Recommendation:
I note that the worker was technically ineligible to avail of the terms of Circular 068/2020 as she was not being paid the acting allowance at the time. She did however subsequently receive the acting allowance and arrears were paid covering the period. This is significant, as she could be said to retrospectively be eligible for the terms of that circular. The employer relies on another Circular 003/2020 to require the worker to work roster arrangements as advised by the Line Manager. I note the worker’s willingness to cover some weekend work if required but she is not in a position to be available on a regular basis. I accept the worker’s bona fides on this as there may be some domestic responsibilities involved. In circumstances where the worker has worked her regular shift pattern over more than four years and she has genuine reasons for not being in a position to work regular weekend shifts, I recommend that the status quo be maintained and the worker not be forced to work weekends but can still provide some cover when needed as she has heretofore. |
Dated: 15th July 2022.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Industrial relations dispute, weekend working. |