Employee

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Catering Attendant

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

Shonagh Byrne, SIPTU

Human Resources Management

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00041387-001

03/12/2020

The employee has worked as an attendant in the catering department of a hospital since January 2000.  She works 40 hours a week and her weekly wages are €687.97.  Until December 2019, she had the same fortnightly roster, which meant that, in general, she worked the same days and she had the same days off every fortnight.  At the hearing, I established that, in week 1, she worked on Wednesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays.  In week 2, she worked Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays.  The effect of this roster is that it facilitates four consecutive days off every second week, on Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday.

Since she commenced employment in the hospital, the employee was generally assigned to a specific ward, unless that ward was closed for some reason.  She wants to be rostered on that ward on a continuous basis as long as patients are accommodated there.

In December 2019, the employee’s fixed roster was changed, and she was no longer rostered off every Monday and Tuesday.  She has a lot of family responsibilities and she claims an entitlement to the fixed roster, which was her working schedule for 19 years.  

At the hearing, Ms Byrne set out the background to the employee’s grievance.  She said that, for more than 18 years, she has “agreed set days off on Monday and Tuesday every second week.”  This facilitated her responsibilities for looking after her husband and her mother, who were sick.  She also minds her grand-daughter.  Ms Byrne said that the employee has no problem changing her days off when she is needed to cover a shift.

In her submission at the hearing, Ms Byrne set out seven occasions in 2020, when the employee’s days off were changed without consultation with her.  She said that she is still not being rostered off on her “set days off.”

Ms Byrne provided a copy of the notes of a meeting that the employee attended with her line manager on May 21st 2020.  The notes show that the line manager told the employee that there was no agreement to a set roster and that her roster was not set in stone and that it would have to change.

With no satisfactory outcome emerging from the May 21st meeting, another meeting took place on August 26th 2020.  The employee’s line manager attended with the hospital’s general services manager.  The line manager said that no agreement was in place to provide anyone with a set roster.  She also disagreed with the employee’s claim that she was entitled to be rostered in a particular ward.

On October 5th 2020, SIPTU the issue was referred to the hospital’s HR manager; however, on October 14th, the HR manager wrote to the union to confirm that the employer did not support the employee’s case that she was entitled to a set roster in a set location.  The employee and her union representative attended a meeting with the HR manager on November 9th 2020, but the issue was not resolved.  She referred her grievance to the WRC on December 3rd 2020.

Summarising the employee’s position, Ms Byrne said that she is entitled to fixed days off in accordance with an unwritten agreement, provided for by custom and practice.  She noted that two of the employee’s colleagues had fixed days off until they retired.  The employee is not seeking additional entitlements, but simply to retain what she had. and to have Mondays and Tuesdays off every second week so that she can look after her family.  Ms Byrne said that the employee has always been flexible when it was necessary and she has demonstrated this by covering the shifts of her colleagues.

In addition to her fixed days off, the employee wants to remain working in one particular ward, and she wants this to be agreed in writing.

The employer’s position, as set out by the HR manager, is that the employee’s roster has not been changed, but that she is treated in the same manner as others on the same roster and that there is no justification for her to be treated differently.

In his submission, the HR manager outlined the chronology of meetings that led to the submission of this dispute to the WRC.  This sequence of meetings has been set out in the previous section above.

The HR manager said that the employee is rostered on five over seven days in the catering department.  At the hearing, it was established that around 70 people are on this roster.  An employee may request a particular day off by putting a request into the “days off request book.”  The HR manager said that flexibility is required and that everyone on the roster is treated in the same manner.

The employer has no evidence of the employee being entitled to work a set roster with set days off.  While she had specific days off for a number of years, these days were arranged with the agreement of employees on the roster and no right to the set days off has been conferred on this employee.  The HR manager said that the objective of patient care is a priority; however, as far as possible when an employee requests a particular day off, the management in the catering department will try to facilitate their request.  The employee can request a particular day off, and, most of the time, her request will be granted, once the cover is available.

Concluding the employer’s position, the HR manager said that the employee is treated the same as her colleagues in the catering department.  She can avail of flexibility with regard to requests for specific days off.  However, as she is part of an overall team, she cannot be treated differently to others without good cause. 

I have given this matter some consideration and I accept the employee’s assertion, clearly articulated by Ms Byrne on her behalf, that she simply wants to continue to work the roster she was on before December 2019.  On the management side, there was a concession that the employee had the same days off for a number of years.  I accept that this may have applied also to two other employees in the catering department who have since retired.

At the hearing, the problem of one employee having set days off on Mondays and Tuesdays was clearly set out by the catering manager.  The effect is that other employees who may be rostered off on Saturdays and Sundays are prevented from being given the opportunity for a long weekend, because the Monday is “taken” by one employee all the time.  It is apparent that this rigidity in the roster can only lead to unfairness and a sense of inequality.  The HR manager referred to the problem of “flexibilities being consolidated” resulting in flexibilities not be available for everyone.

Over the years before 2019, the employee was facilitated with the same days off most of the time.  The catering manager said that this was possible because some agency staff were employed in the department.  Since December 2019, around 10 permanent employees have been recruited and there is now a need to ensure that the whole group of 70 is employees is rostered for days off and holidays. 

While I heard Ms Byrne saying that the system up to December 2019 worked well for everyone, it is clear that, from the perspective of the managers who work on the rosters, this was not the case from December 2019 onwards.  If this employee was to be permitted to hold on to what she considers to be an entitlement to fixed days off, the result is that Mondays and Tuesdays are not available for other employees to have a day off. 

I wish to address the employee’s contention that she should only be assigned to a particular ward.  Like the issue of fixed days off, this rigidity with regard to work location is not conducive to a co-operative way of working.  It is my view also that a healthier working life is provided by the opportunity to work across a variety of working locations, meeting different people and doing slightly different duties on a day to day basis.     

Having examined the submissions of both sides and, having made enquiries of the parties at the hearing, it is my view that the flexibility provided by the “days off request” system is adequate for the employee to be facilitated to have Mondays and Tuesdays off occasionally.  I find no basis for her to be the only person in a department of 70 employees on a fixed roster, with set days off.

I accept that this employee is not entitled to fixed days off.  I recommend however, that the management continue their policy to consider her occasional requests for days off on Mondays and Tuesdays every second week.  With regard to being assigned to particular wards in the hospital, I recommend that the employee is treated in the same manner as her colleagues.

Roster, fixed days off