Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Nurse

Hospital

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

01/11/2021

The Worker has been employed as a Nurse Manager with the Employer since 1 July 1981 and is paid €2,599 per fortnight. She stated that her dispute relates to the unfair working conditions that she has experienced following her transfer in 2016 to the community healthcare organisation where she is employed and the failure of the Employer to address these. 

The Worker asserted that in 2016 she was involuntarily moved from her previous work location to a high support 24 hour hostel, which is a 6 bed behaviour unit located in a remote setting and that her terms and conditions were unilaterally changed following this transfer. Specifically, in her new location, she stated that those working in her managerial grade work a 92.45 hour roster with no night duty and that as part of her roster she works two 13 hour 15 minute day shifts together each week, either Thursday/Friday or Saturday/Sunday. She also stated that in her new location, she starts at 7:30am and finishes at 20:45 which is substantially longer than the roster she was required to work prior to her involuntary move when she started at 8:00 and finished at 20:08. She also highlighted that in her new location, she has two excessive unpaid breaks, one of one hour duration and another of 43 minutes, unlike her previous role where she just had a 1 hour unpaid break. She stated that while the excessive breaks extend roster cover for the Employer and achieve cost savings through the elimination of TOIL for other staff, they are unnecessarily long and have a detrimental effect on her work/life balance.  She also added that as there is insufficient provision for handover time at the end of each shift, her finish time can be further delayed. In addition, she highlighted that the new work location is very remotely located and that she has had to take all her breaks on site. She also stated that for many years there was a lack of suitable welfare facilities to take these extended breaks but acknowledged that this matter was recently resolved.

The Worker said that she has repeatedly raised her grievances formally and informally with management since 2017 but alleged that the meetings to discuss the matter were cancelled with no explanation and her emails were ignored. She also stated that she was not invited either to attend the Joint Review Group set up to investigate the issues or give any update on what occurred. She asserted that she has been disrespected by the Employer and treated contrary to any decent standards.

The Employer stated that in 2016, following several serious incidents in its rehabilitation residences, there was a requirement to revise the nurse management governance structures in the region where the Worker was based. This resulted in all of the workers in the same managerial grade as the Worker in the instant dispute being re-assigned within the residential settings; the rationale being enhanced governance and oversight of the service. The workers were moved without changes to their terms and conditions of employment and no financial loss.

While it was accepted that that the Worker’s break times were 1 hour and 43 minutes in her current position, the Employer stated that these were agreed as part of the rosters developed and agreed with the Worker’s union in 2013, following the conclusion of the Haddington Road agreement. The Worker was also informed that any changes in the rosters would have implications for all of the staff across the service and it was also highlighted that all rosters in the service are currently under review between the union and management.

The Employer also stated that the Worker in the instant dispute works the same hours as all the other workers on the same roster on which she operates and that all the workers on this roster attract additional premium earnings and accrual of time off in lieu. It was also disputed that the Worker has been required to work 92.45 hours per fortnight because this includes unpaid and paid break times. In fact, the Employer asserted that the Worker only works 39 hours per week or 78 hours per fortnight.

The Employer also disputed that the Worker has an insufficient handover time at the end of each shift and stated that the current handover time of fifteen minutes in the location where she is based formed part of the negotiation between management and the Worker’s union in the establishment of agreed rosters in 2013. It was also asserted that the handover time was in line with that in other similar establishments.

The Employer recognised that the Worker raised a grievance in relation to her terms and conditions of employment and stated that several attempts were made to resolve the dispute. Specifically, it was highlighted that the Worker had several meetings with local service management, her trade union and the Employer’s employee relations manager in the process to date. The Employer further stated that in line with the Grievance and Disciplinary procedure, grievances were made by the Worker and managed under stage 1 and stage 2 of the grievance procedure. Specifically, there were meetings in 2018 and 2019, further to which, on April 26 2019, a letter outlining the outcome of stage 2 issued to the Worker from the Interim Director of Nursing. The Worker appealed the stage 2 outcome to stage 3 of the grievance procedure via the employee relations manager. On August 29th 2019 a meeting was held in relation to stage 3, the outcome of which was to put the grievance on hold in order to arrange for discussions between local service management and the union regarding the grievance.

On November 21 2019, the Area Director of Nursing, the union representatives, the employee relations manager and the Worker (along with her colleague who raised an identical dispute – see ADJ ) had a meeting. At this meeting, the issue of the rest time between long day shifts was raised and the agreed action for management and union was to explore potential roster change/improvement. While further meetings took place in 2020, progress was considerably hampered by delays due to COVID 19 pandemic. Following a meeting in November 2020 where no resolution was reached, a decision was made to refer the issue to a joint review group (JRG). In 2021 however, there were challenges to setting up this JRG due to a number of factors, including the requirement for two Area Directors of Nursing and two nominees from the union to be involved which meant that it was extremely difficult to agree meeting dates which suited all members of the group. In addition, much of early 2021 was taken up with significant COVID challenges across the health service. Furthermore, subsequent planned meetings were postponed in July 2021 because of industrial action, in August 2021 because a group member was sick and in October 2021 because of the bereavement of a review group family member. In their written submission, the Employer provided details of other meetings and engagements after 1 November 2021, the date on which this dispute was referred to the WRC, but as of the date of the hearing at the WRC, the matter was still unresolved.

I find in the first instance that the Worker’s terms and conditions have clearly changed following the transfer to her new role. Specifically, her start and finish times are no longer what they were, and her breaks are much longer than they previously were which has caused her great inconvenience.

I also find the inordinate delay in addressing the Worker’s grievance to be unacceptable. Specifically, while I note that she agreed in August 2019 to delay the referral of her grievance appeal to stage 3 of the process pending discussions at a Joint Review Group, it is incomprehensible that there has been no progress in the resolution of the matter since then and that her grievance is still unresolved. 

Given the inexcusable and incomprehensible delays in the efforts to resolve this dispute, which are in no part attributable to the Worker, I recommend that she initiates stage 3 of the grievance process within four weeks of the receipt of this recommendation, that the Employer facilitates this and an outcome is given within a further four weeks. Any efforts to resolve the dispute at the Joint Review Group (JRG) can continue in parallel.

I also find that the Employer should pay the Worker €3,000 for the protracted delays in the attempts to resolve her grievance which have clearly and understandably caused her great upset as well as considerable stress and frustration.