Employee

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A General Operative

A Health Services Provider

Representatives

SIPTU

Represented by Management

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC – 00000089

CA-00049731-001

18/04/2022

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

IR - SC – 00000090

CA-00049731-002

18/04/2022

The employee is a general operative in the maintenance department of a hospital.  He has two grievances with his employer which, although they have been investigated in accordance with the employer’s grievance procedure, they have not been resolved to his satisfaction.  These relate to the ending of the requirement for him to work overtime on public holidays, and the policy of the employer not to pay for overtime, but to give employees time off instead.

CA-00049732-001:  Dispute about the Ending of Overtime

The employee accepts that, in August 2019, with the assistance of SIPTU, he reached an agreement on compensation for the loss of overtime.  However, at the hearing, he claims that this agreement related only to his overtime in August 2019.  From October 2019 until December 2020, at the request of his foreman, who has now retired, the employee worked overtime for three hours on every public holiday.  He said that when he asked his foreman about the previous agreement to buy out overtime, his foreman told him that SIPTU would sort it out, or something to that effect.

In December 2020, the introduction by the waste collection provider of a larger bin meant that the employee was no longer required to work on public holidays.  He is seeking compensation of 1.5 times the value of what he claims are his lost earnings. 

CA-00049732-002:  Dispute about Time Off in Lieu of Overtime

The employee was not paid for the overtime he worked on the public holidays between October 2019 and December 2020, but he accrued 66 hours of time off in lieu.  He wants to be paid for this overtime instead of taking the time off.

CA-00049732-001:  Dispute about the Ending of Overtime

Setting out the employer’s position on this matter, Mr ER referred to the conclusion on December 14th 2021 at stage 3 of the grievance procedure.  This followed a meeting on December 9th 2021 at which the employee was accompanied by his SIPTU representative.

In his findings of December 14th 2021, Mr ER concluded that an agreement reached between SIPTU and management on November 8th 2019, brought the employee’s grievances in relation to overtime to a close.  The agreement was that the employee would receive a once-off payment for working on August 5th 2019.  Mr ER referred to an email from Mr Paul Hardy of SIPTU to the Buildings and Maintenance Manager on November 19th 2019 in which Mr Hardy stated:

“This offer is acceptable and resolves (the employee’s) grievance.  This is without prejudice to either side’s position on the wider issue of pay for public holiday working.”

Mr ER also referred to a letter sent to SIPTU by a manager of the service on April 19th 2010 in which the manager stated that overtime and time off in lieu “must be approved prior to the event.”  The employer’s position is that no employee is permitted to work overtime without the approval of a manager.  Mr ER accepted that the employee who is the subject of this dispute worked overtime between October 2019 and December 2020 and that he has accrued 66 hours of time off in lieu.

Mr ER referred to previous agreements between the employee and his union and the management which led to a buy-out of overtime.  Following the hearing of this grievance on November 10th 2022, Mr ER sent me a copy of payroll information which showed that, in February 1998 and in June and November 2008, agreements were reached on the buy-out of the employee’s overtime.  The total amount paid to the employee was €15,343.

CA-00049732-002:  Dispute about Time Off in Lieu of Overtime

The employer’s position is that the agreement reached on November 8th 2019 concerning the payment of overtime with time off in lieu was agreed with the employee and his union representative and confirmed in an email from Mr Paul Hardy of SITPU on November 19th 2019.  Mr ER confirmed that the policy across the organisation is that, on the rare occasions when overtime is necessary, payment is in the form of time off in lieu.

CA-00049732-001:  Dispute about the Ending of Overtime and Claim for Compensation

I have considered the employee’s claim and his statement that he worked overtime between October 2019 and December 2020 on the instructions of his manager.  From my assessment of the circumstances, it appears that he worked for three hours on 10 public holidays between October 2019 and December 2020.  I note in the employer’s documents that the claim is for 32 hours’ pay.  It is apparent to me that the employee worked these hours in the clear knowledge that an agreement had been reached to end overtime working in December 2019.  He also worked these hours in the knowledge that the policy of the employer is to compensate for working overtime with time off in lieu and not pay.

The employee is seeking compensation for the loss of this overtime.  He claims that previous compensation payments were unrelated to the loss of overtime on public holidays, and Ms Feeney confirmed that this is the case in an email she sent to me after the hearing on November 10th 2022.

I have given serious consideration to the employee’s claim.  I am mindful that he is employed in a job which is publicly funded, and where his wages are reasonable and governed by national agreements.  His terms and conditions are also reasonable and his job is secure.  He has been previously compensated when he lost overtime and, in this regard, €15,343 has been paid to him from public funds.  The 30 hours of overtime which he is no longer required to work was only ever payable in the form of time off in lieu.  Paid overtime is contrary to the agreement on overtime between the employee’s union and management and the loss of overtime on public holidays due to the introduction of the larger bin does not amount to a financial loss.

It is apparent to me that the employee has been adequately compensated for the loss of his overtime on three occasions in the past.  He reached an agreement on November 8th 2019 for further compensation.  He continued to work overtime on public holidays, although he had no formal approval to do so.  It is my view that there is no merit in the employee’s claim.

CA-00049732-002:  Dispute about Time Off in Lieu of Overtime

At the hearing of this matter, the employee said that he would prefer to be paid rather than taking time off in lieu of the overtime he worked between October 2019 and December 2020.  It is apparent however, that, from as far back as 2010, the employer has a policy, which is agreed with SIPTU, that overtime, where it is approved, is compensated for by time off in lieu.  This was re-iterated in the agreement that the employee reached with his employer in November 2019.  For this reason, I do not find in favour of the employee with regard to his grievance concerning pay instead of time of in lieu.

CA-00049732-001:  Dispute about the Ending of Overtime

I recommend that the employer takes no further action with regard to this grievance.

CA-00049732-002:  Dispute about Time Off in Lieu of Overtime

I recommend that the employer takes no further action with regard to this grievance.

Compensation for loss of overtime, time off in lieu of overtime