Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Tara  Stepala

Saint John Of God, Community Services Clg

Representatives

  Self-represented.

Eoin Haverty, Ibec.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998

CA-00041299-001

29/11/2020

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent organisation on 18th March 2008, she resigned from this employment on 28th March 2021.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 20th November 2020.

The Complainant feels that the complaint that she submitted did not contain a statement of some relevant events that gave rise to the complaint. She now provides it and sets out the factual background to the complaint together with the corresponding evidence.  The following is a timeline of emails circulated between the Complainant, the Programme Manager Ms. Grainne   Ridge and the Interim Regional Director Ms. Elisa Doyle.

9/9/2020

The Complainant initiated communication with the relevant Programme Manager and asked for temporary reduction of her contractual hours. She was hoping to work for 19.5 rather than 39 hours per week. The Complainant reassured the Programme Manager of her flexibility. She also expressed her willingness to be transferred to any location within the department if that was necessary to grant the approval.

10/9/2020

Within less than 24 hours the Programme Manager emailed the Complainant and refused to reduce her contractual hours. She suggested that the Complainant should resign from her current position (Social Care Leader). She offered her a position of a  part-time or relief Social Care Worker. She also made it clear that her salary would be reduced as a result of this action.

16/9/2020

The Complainant expressed her disappointment regarding the suggestion that she should give up her position and remuneration. She asked the Programme Manager to reconsider the decision. At this point she applied for parental leave. She was hoping that the Programme Manager would be more inclined to approve this form of reducing her working hours.

18/9/2020

The Programme Manager refused to approve the parental leave application.

07/10/2020

The Complainant escalated her applications to the Interim Regional Director. She suggested a number of different options that would allow her to keep her position. She was happy to accept a transfer, redeployment or assignment of a different brief. She stated that she  was ready to work partly from home (if it was necessary for her to remain a full-time employee).

9/11/2020

Since the Complainant received no response, she contacted the Director of Service again.

12/11/2020

The Director of Service responded but did not approve the Complainant’s application for 19.5 hours/week of parental leave. They conditionally "approved" 8 hours of parental leave that the Complainant did not apply for. The Respondent did not acknowledge or comment on the alternatives that had been suggested.

13/11/2020

The Complainant sought clarification regarding her actual parental leave application and the final decision on it. It remains unanswered.

Relevant Additional Information:

At no point did the Respondent offer the Complainant any form of support. No effort was made to meet her and to discuss her circumstances. Not one phone call was made, and the emails remained the only form of communication. The Complainant felt that she was left in a very vulnerable position.

Because of her efforts to get the reduced hours the Complainant believes she is at the receiving end of punitive actions by her employer. As the situation was left unanswered and unclear, the Complainant feels she was left in limbo. She then received an email in early December from a new manager who informed her that she was her new supervisor. She was also informed that she was being transferred to another part of the organisation upon her return to work. This transfer would affect her employment conditions. Substantial additional duties would be assigned to her as a result of it.

The Complainant began her employment with the Respondent company on 18th March 2008 as an On-Call/Relief Instructor, further moving to a permanent position as an Instructor, and finally employed as a Social Care Leader (SCL) for the Respondent until her resignation which concluded her employment on 28th March 2021.

Background to the Complaint

On 4th August 2020 the Complainant initially requested to take a total of 35.4 hours Parental Leave from 24th December 2020 until 1st January 2021.This leave was approved but not required as due to the Complainant being on sick leave.

The Complainant subsequently sent an email to Programme Manager   Grainne, Ridge 9th September 2020, requesting for help with regards to her   work/life situation, stating that "I don't think I can come back full time in January. I am not sure what my options are but it would be great if I could reduce my hours to 19.5 every week and work part time for a while.

Ms Grainne Ridge, Programme Manager, replied to the Complainant on 10th September 2020 informing her that unfortunately due to the Complainant's role as an SCL, it requires management presence for full time hours and in other locations the SCL is the person in charge from a HIQA perspective which is required to be a full-time role also. (To note, Support Living is no longer under the remit of HIQA anymore, however the standards remain the same)

Ms Ridge politely offered the position of a Social Care Worker to the Complainant, ensuring that her permanency would remain. Ms Ridge also mentioned the fact that there were a number of vacancies in a number of different locations suitable to the Complainant. Ms Ridge offered the Complainant the opportunity to meet and discuss the options further if she so wished.

On 16thSeptember 2020 the Complainant replied to Ms Ridge’s communication, "If demoting me is the only option that the Organisation can propose I would definitely want to meet you and discuss it." The Complainant concluded the correspondence by stating "I hope you could consider theapplication to reduce my hours once again. Perhaps you could use your position and influence to discuss it with Elisa or HR. I would really appreciate it. Alternatively, I could use my parental leave. Perhaps the Organisation would be more inclined to approve it. Please find an enclosed application.

Ms Ridge replied on 18th September 2020. She ensured the Complainant that she was firstly not being demoted. She had always been a strong manager and that this was in no way a reflection on her ability, but a requirement for a Social Care Worker (SCW) to oversee Support Living Services (SLS). Ms Ridge also made reference to the fact that 19.5 hours a week of Parental Leave would not be able to be approved but 8 hours per week, taking the leave in blocks could be arranged.

The Complainant decided to bypass Ms Ridge and escalate this correspondence to Elisa Doyle, Director, on 7th October 2020.  Here the Complainant reiterated her concerns that her application was rejected in haste and again was adamant she was being demoted as a result. The Complainant requested Ms Doyle to consider her application.

Ms Doyle responded to the Complainant on 12th November 2020and requested clarity regarding her comment that her application was rejected with haste. Ms Doyle approved the one day of 8 hours per week, as mentioned by Ms Ridge on 18th September 2020.

On 13th November 2020 the Complainant replied to Ms Doyle requesting for 19.5 hours of Parental Leave rather than 8 hours per week.

The Complainant was on Annual Leave from 26th October 2020 until 31st December 2020.

The Complainant made complaints to the WRC under the Parental Leave Act 1998 on 29th November 2020 and on 8th January 2021, describing the same issue within each.

Mr Ian Henderson, HR Officer, received an email from Ms Doyle in January 2021. Ms Doyle confirmed that the Complainant could only be approved for 8 hours Parental Leave per week.

The Complainant was engaged on numerous continuous periods of sick leave consisting of:

•       04/01/21 - 09/01/21

•       11/01/21 - 30/01/21

•       01/02/21 - 28/02/21

•       01/03/21 - 28/03/21

On 1st March 2021, whilst on a period of sick leave, the Complainant issued the Respondent with her letter of resignation, stating that her last day of employment would be 28th March 2021 in line with her notice period as per her contract of employment. The Respondent followed up with a letter of confirmation the next day 2nd March 2021.

Respondent's Position

The Complainant claims that she did not receive confirmation relating to her application of Parental Leave and whether or not her request of 19.5 hours had been accepted or denied.

It is the Respondent's position that in correspondence from Ms Ridge on 18th September 2020, she outlines that the application for 19.5 hours would not be accepted as per the need to have a full-time SCL present at all times.

TheComplainantdecidedthatthisanswerwasnottohersatisfactionandproceeded to contact Ms Doyle regarding her application. There is no option toappeal this process any further, but the Complainant decided to do so on her ownaccord. Similar to Ms Ridge, Ms Doyle stated in writing that 8 hours of ParentalLeaveperweekwaspermitted.

The Complainant at this point had received the same response off two separate staff members from the Respondent company, both of which were not to her liking.

Between 26th October 2020 and up until her final day of employment on 28th March 2021, the Complainant did not work due to a combination of annual leave and sick leave. It should be noted the Complainant received compensation for each of these weeks apart from 04/01/21 - 09/01/21 as no sick certificate was submitted.

It is also the Respondent's position that although a working from home arrangement was suggested by the Complainant, this could not be facilitated due to the nature of her role.

The Respondent would like to point out too that the Complainant was never threatened with demotion of any kind. The Complainant, as per her original correspondence in September 2020, requested to reduce her hours to 19.5 hours per week to work part time, and to find some way for her employer to accommodate this. Ms Ridge responded with a list of options including a part- time position of a SCW or a position on the relief panel given the degree of flexibility needed by the Complainant.

It should be noted within region of Early Services & Residential services, Dublin in St John of God Liffey services to date, no SCL employee has been in receipt of 19.5 hours of Parental Leave per week. The Complainant was also previously engaged on a period of Parental Leave in January 2019 which was subject to 8 hours per week for a period of six months.

Conclusion

The Respondent respectfully submits that they have reiterated on several occasions to the Complainant their position with regards her application of Parental leave and that she was fully aware of any other possible avenues which may have been explored in order to help with her situation.

The EU Parental Leave Directive was transposed and implemented into Irish law by the Parental Leave Act in 1998. Since then the Act has been amended by the Parental Leave (Amendment) Act, 2006 and further amended by the Parental Leave (Amendment) Act of 2019.

Parental leave lets parents take unpaid leave from work to spend time looking after their children. It is possible to take up to 26 weeks’ parental leave for each eligible child before their 12th birthday.

An entitled employee may take this leave in one continuous block or two separate blocks of at least 6 weeks each with the proviso that there must be a gap of at least 10 weeks between the 2 blocks.

It is possible to break parental leave into working days or hours (or a combination of both) subject to agreement by the employer.

The Respondent employer has a policy on Parental Leave. From reading through this document I see that it is possible for employees to request a more flexible pattern of parental leave with the agreement and approval of the employer.

In the instant case the Respondent has, for operational reasons, not approved the request for parental leave as presented by the Complainant.

The Respondent has not breached the Act and have exercised their right to say no to the proposal presented by the Complainant. Under these circumstances I have no option but to find the complaint as presented, is not well founded. Accordingly, the complaint fails.

The Respondent has not breached the Act and have exercised their right to say no to the proposal presented by the Complainant. Under these circumstances I have no option but to find the complaint as presented, is not well founded. Accordingly, the complaint fails.

Parental Leave Acts.