ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00036387.
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A bus driver | A public transport company |
Representatives | Barnaba Dorda SIPTU | Company Management |
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA – 00047582 - 001 | 10/12/2021 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Date of Hearing: 22/06/2022
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1st July 2019, employment ended on 12th May 2021. The Complainant was employed as a bus driver earning a gross wage of approximately €730.00 per week.
This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 10th December 2021. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker had to self-isolate between 20th March and 1st April 2021 and was due to be fit for work around 2nd April. After regular communication between the worker and his employer during this period the worker was informed of two duties – these being the 2nd and 3rd April 2021. The worker pointed out to the employer that in line with the Organisation of Working Time Act that he intended to return to work after his two rest days which now became the 2nd and 3rd of April and that he would be returning on 5th April (Easter Monday) as the Sunday (Easter Sunday) was a rostered rest day. The worker requested his start and finishing times for his shifts. The worker received no reply to his email however when he reported for work on 5th April, he was instructed by his supervisor to go home and contact the operations team. The worker contacted the operations team the same day. The worker received no communication from management until the afternoon of 6th April which meant he was now at the loss of two days’ work. Subsequently it was explained to the worker that as he had failed to attend work on 2nd and 3rd of April and /or failed to inform the company of his return to work date, they (the employer) had taken it upon themselves to mark the worker down as absent on both of the dates (2nd and 3rd April). The worker highlighted the fact that he had sent emails it was at this point that another Assistant Operations Manager replied to him. The worker felt extremely frustrated with his employer’s attitude towards him given the fact that he had actually informed the company in writing of all of the above but there seemed to be a lack of communication within the company. The worker felt that he had tried to resolve all of the above but to no avail. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
Once a period of mandatory isolation had ended all colleagues returned to their rota line on the next working day continued with their rota pattern. It is confirmed that the worker was due to return to his rota on 2nd April 2021 following his isolation period, as set out in his medical certificate. The employer’s Assistant Operations Manager confirmed the worker’s return to work date with hi by email on Thursday 1st April 2021, as well as confirming the rota line week they were in and the rota pattern to follow upon his return from isolation. The worker failed to attend his allocated duty on 2nd April 2021. Upon contacting the worker to establish why he did not attend his duty for that day ha stated that he was of the belief that his rest days during that week moved to after his isolation period and that he was due to commence work on 4th April 2021. This is not the case, the rota pattern remains in place and when the individual returns to work, in any circumstance, they continue to follow the pattern i.e., if the return on a Wednesday and the rest days that week were Sunday and then Friday, their next rest day after the Wednesday would be the Friday. This is the same for all drivers when returning from any leave, whether that is annual leave, sick leave and so on. There was an exchange of emails between the worker and the employer where this was explained and outlined. The worker did not present himself for duty on the allocated day and failed to contact the employer, he was marked as absent as per the Performance and Conduct Guidelines. The worker did not present for work the following day, 3rd April 2021 which again was a rostered day for him to work, therefore he was marked as absent on the second day. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The worker is looking to be paid for the two days in question.
Having considered the argument from both the worker and the employer I find that there is far more credibility in the argument presented by the employer. The argument presented by the worker would result in an unmanageable situation arising.
My recommendation in this matter is that the complaint is not well founded and therefore fails. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
My recommendation in this matter is that the complaint is not well founded and therefore fails.
Dated: 21/11/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act 1969 |