Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

Fidelma Carron SIPTU, Workers Rights Centre

 Maria Ferguson

HR Director

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00000969

23/12/2022

The complainant was aggrieved with a decision by the respondent to change her work location on her existing line in the 3-cycle rotas .She submitted that her move to a different line after a period of 15 years -  was imposed without consultation or agreement .The respondent asserted that the grievance did not have merit as their records demonstrated that the complainant had worked in other locations without raising a grievance , that the respondent had to balance the needs of all staff and ensure equity in relation to the allocation of rest days  and that staff are not assigned to lines and work across multiple locations as provided for in their contracts of employment .

Adjudication Officer,

The case before you today is in relation to dispute between our member, (the complainant) and her employer (the respondent) in relation to management’s decision to change her work location on her existing line in the 3-cycle rotas.

SIPTU contends that the complainant is on a fixed line, and we are seeking that the line is adhered to and that she returns to her normal rota.

The case is referred under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

Background:

The complainant commenced employment on the 30th January 2000 and she is employed as a Domestic in a hospital campus.  She normally works in the DOP Admissions Unit, female side and C House.

The hospital’s Domestic Services operate a 3-cycle system of rotas known as “the change of days” rotas.  In effect one group of Domestic Staff have every Monday & Tuesday as rest days, the next group have every Wednesday and Thursday as rest days and the last group have every Friday and Saturday as rest days.  Every 24 weeks this rotates and the group who had Monday and Tuesday as rest days now change to Wednesday and Thursday and so on.

Within this system there are an historical group of staff who always worked in particular locations (a set line) with the remainder of staff working across all locations.  Approx 15 years ago the manager at that time offered the complainant the line/locations of female admissions, P Unit and C House for her duties and work locations.  At that time the complainant would have had 7 years’ service and was offered this line/location on the basis of the agreed seniority system.  For the 7 years prior to taking up this line of female admissions and CHouse the complainant would have provided cross cover in various locations.

When rota 3 was issued in May 2022 the existing line for the complainant was changed without any discussion.  The complainant contacted Ms.McG,  and she was informed that “that just the way it is”.   The complainant advised that she would be submitting a grievance.

The complainant submitted a grievance on the 15th June 2022, copy attached.

Stage 1 grievance hearing was held on the 23rd June 2022 with Ms. Mc G.  The outcome of the grievance was issued on the 11th July 2022 and the grievance was not upheld.  Copy of the outcome attached.

Stage 2 grievance hearing was held on the 22nd July 2022 with Ms M, A/General Manager, .  The grievance was not upheld, and we attach the outcome of the grievance dated the 29th July 2022.

Stage 3 grievance hearing was heard remotely on the 11th August 2022 with Ms. H, HR Manager, .  Mr. S, Asst Industrial Appendix 4 Organiser, SIPTU attended the hearing and following the meeting he emailed Ms. H a note/summary of the case, copy attached as.  The grievance outcome was issued on the 4th October and the grievance was not upheld.

In the stage 3 decision mediation was recommended if both parties agree.  Mr. S emailed Ms. F, Head of HR, on the 6th October 2023 seeking clarification on a number of points regarding proposed mediation but he did not receive a reply, see.

Subsequently the matter was referred to the WRC Adjudication Services.

On the 28th May 2023 after rota 2 was issued the complainant emailed Ms. Mc G with a query on two days she was assigned to the male side, and she sought to remain on the female side for continuity.  Ms Mc G replied that the option to arrange a swap for any given day was available.  We attached emails.

On the 7th June 2023 management provided a copy of spreadsheets with the complainant’s rosters for 2014 to 2016.  The complainant disputes the information provided and in particular 2014 where it states that she worked only one shift in the female side. 

Union’s Position:

The complainant is part of an historical group of staff who were offered a fixed line approximately fifteen years.  She was offered to work in the female admission unit and C House based on seniority and she accepted that line.  She has been working on the line since.

It is clear that management are now not recognising the Lines that staff were given a number of years previously and this has resulted in the complainant being moved from her existing line in rota 3.  We refer to point 2 of the outcome of the stage 1 grievance where Ms. Mc G states –

2.  No Lines are assigned to employees.  Staff may be required to work in any location as per their contract of employment……….”  .

We do accept that staff who started in the last few years are not allocated a line and they cover across all locations.  However, this does not apply in the complainant’s case as she has a fixed line that she has continued to work.  When the complainant accepted the fixed line, she was given three rotas, copy attached as.   In the three rotas the complainant works in the following areas –

Admissions Unit Kitchen/Dining,

Admissions Unit – Female side

C House.

We attach a copy of the complainant’s rota for the 12th June 2023 to the 20th November 2023 and it shows that she is working in the three areas listed above.  In addition when the complainant queried the rota, Ms. Mc G replied that –

“Staff habitually work in different locations i.e. in your case you work both DOP and also work in C House.”   

Management have stated that the complainant has worked in other locations, but this has mainly occurred when the complainant is working overtime.

When the “change of days” rotas was introduced in 2021 it was to ensure that rest days were allocated fairly across all staff.  In rota 1 and 2 the complainant is working her normal line and in rota 3 she is changed from the female admissions to male admissions.  There is no need to change staff working locations on fixed lines and the complainant has not been provided with any valid reason for the change in rota 3.

There has been no agreement for the fixed Lines to be removed and when the fixed lines are not adhered to the complainant’s rota is changed from her normal locations in rota 3.

We totally dispute the statement that the complainant has not followed the grievance procedure by raising her grievance firstly on an informal basis before invoking the formal grievance procedures.  The complainant contacted her Manager, Ms. Mc G verbally regarding the changes in work locations in rota 3 and she was informed that “that the way it was”.  Following this response the complainant submitted a written grievance as per the procedures.

Conclusions:

The complainant is part of an historical group of staff who were offered and accepted a fixed line. The complainant has worked on this Line for over 15 years and there has been no discussion or agreement with her to change her normal line.  The “change of days” rotas should not change the work locations on the complainant’s existing line.

In the interest of fairness as stated by the complainant in her grievance she is seeking that “I would like to continue to work of the line that I have worked on for the past 15 years and more recently in the last 12 months during the introduction of the new roster system.

For all of the above reasons and taking all the circumstance of this case into account we are requesting that you uphold the complainant’s grievance and find that management should continue to adhere to the complainant’s line when drawing up the rotas.

1.Introduction

The referral to the WRC was made by Ms. X (represented by the SIPTU) v. the  Respondent as a complaint seeking adjudication under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The nature of the complaint is understood to relate to a claim by Ms. X that she worked 100% of her roster in female admissions and Cleary House, and that this arrangement was unilaterally changed by Management. This grievance was not resolved to the satisfaction of the employee under Stage 1 or 2 of the  the respondent’s  Grievance procedure, and accordingly was referred to  the  A/ Head of Human Resources - CHO1, for determination at Stage 3. This hearing was conducted on the 12th August 2022 by Webex . The employer submission in this case is defined in that context.

2. Background

 The nature of the complaint is understood to broadly relate to a claim by Ms. X that she was unilaterally removed to a different work line on the roster without any discussion. Ms. X  is seeking to be returned to the “normal line” and for the current agreed 24 week cycle with 3 rosters to be adhered to.

 3.  Management do not accept the assertions as set out in Ms.X’s complaint.

Rosters worked by Ms. X 2008-2022

 · Ms. X states that she worked 100% of her roster in the female admissions Dept Y over the last 15 years when actually our records clearly show this information to be inaccurate.

· Ms. X worked in Female admissions, Male admissions, Kitchen Department of Y, Cleary house.

· Ms. X did not work 100% of her rosters on the “Female line” as she has indicated in her complaint.

· Enclosed are the details relating to Ms. X’s work activity for the period 2008-2022.Details of the breakdown of the number of shifts and location are provided.

· The complainant worked in the following locations and therefore did not work 100% of her Roster in Female side Dept. Y over past 15 years: Day Centre, St. C’s  St. B’s St.  St. C’s Medical Rehab NDC; 6am shift (DOP) Female side; Create a Link;Dept. Y male   side;  Dept Y  Female side; DOP Dining Room;  DOP Kitchen; C House Kitchen ; Cl House Cleaning

 · A sample rota for 2022 for Ms. X is attached.

 Brief History & Background to Rosters and its progression

 · In the year 2000 staff were given notification of their roster by means of phoning the office or checking with Supervisors on a daily basis as to where they were rostered to work for the next 2 days. The roster was posted on noticeboard at the office. 2 days' notice of a shift was given at that time.

· The Roster had potential to change daily and staff accommodated needs of Service and moved to the location which required cover due to sick leave, annual leave, force majeure or emergency situations/cover in any given Department. (i.e. if someone became ill while on shift and it was a clinical area staff would be asked to move to prioritise clinical areas. Covid-19 was major challenge in later years with deep cleans).

 · In January 2001 the roster was extended to give staff notice of their following week's shifts (instead of only 2 days' notice). The roster was posted on the Notice board at the Supervisors office, and it was staff responsibility to check where they were rostered for that coming week.

· This continued until 2021 when a new 12 hour Roster was proposed by Management. This was voted upon in June 2021 but the Ballot was rejected by staff and therefore the Roster reverted backed to 8 and 9hr shifts.

· All staff were notified of their Roster in the same manner by post to their home address which included their roster for 12 weeks and this was repeated by 2 therefore staff now have advance notice of 24weeks roster. Staff also received Expression of Interest for overtime in same mail posting.

 · A copy of the correspondence issued to staff in July 2021 regarding implementation of change of days on rota is included.

 Rosters – Rotas

· The level of Staffing required in the Dept Y and consequential rotas needed is attached.

 · The specific roles and duties attached to staff working in each area is attached.

· There are three 24 week rosters as follows: Rota 1, (24 weeks) Rota 2 (24 weeks) Rota 3 (24 weeks) These Rotas repeat on a continual basis yearly with minimal change except for Service needs.

 All staff rotate on Rota's 1, 2 and 3. Some staff work in 4 or 5 different locations – an example of this is included below: (Staff names have been retracted for GDPR- original records available for inspection)

 Rota 1           Rota 2          Rota 3                                                           TOTAL

 4 locations, 3 locations, 3 locations      Staff 1   -                                 10

5 locations, 4 locations 3 locations         Staff 2                                    12                                                    

3 locations, 3 locations, 2 locations        Staff 3                                      8

4 locations, 3 locations, 2 locations         Staff 4                                      9

2 locations 2 locations    2 location          Ms. X                                       6

 From the table above Ms. X has 2 moves with each of the 3 Rotas while other staff rotate to between 2 and 5 locations.

 · There are 46 staff working in numerous locations and in order to grant staff two rest days together staff must rotate and overlap into locations in order to cover the staff that are off on rest days and to provide adequate cover to maintain standards as set out by IPC.

 Accommodating swaps in the Roster

 · All staff are given the opportunity to contact the Office in the first instance with any queries with an assurance from the Department to endeavour to accommodate requests or shift swap requests by staff. 

4. Conclusion & Summation

 On the basis of this submission and related documentation, the employer respectfully suggests that the complaint before the WRC has no merit and should be denied.

 · Decisions made by management are to ensure that all staff receive adequate rest time and that there is equity in relation to the dispersal of rest days.

 · Rosters were introduced by management to ensure all staff have two consecutive rest days. The two consecutive rest days change each roster in the interest of fairness to all staff.

· Staff may be advised to move location owing to service needs. Staff are not assigned to lines and can also work across multiple locations. There is a swap option in place where staff can swap amongst themselves. Numerous staff have worked multiple locations on the rosters since its implementation.

· Ms. X’s contract of employment indicates that her location is St.C Hospital with initial assignment to the Housekeeping department and that “you may be required to work in any service area within the vicinity as the need arises”.

 · Ms. X asserts that she worked 100% on the one line and that there was no discussion with her on moving to another line. The Employer has outlined above that this is incorrect and does not reflect Ms. X’s rosters over the last 15 years.

 · The rosters are distributed to staff several weeks prior to the roster implementation date. Any staff seeking to swap their lines can work with their line manager and every effort is made to accommodate this. Staff have been informed in writing of this option and many staff, including Ms. X have availed of same.

 · It is the Employers position that no lines are assigned to employees. Staff may be required to work in any location as per their contract of employment and as per service needs. Staff are given notice of their 24 week roster so that they can plan their work/life balance. These matters were also set out in the Stage 1 Grievance Hearing

 · Ms. X indicated at the Stage 2 grievance hearing that she does not “own” the line and that lines are not assigned to employees. On the basis of this submission and related documentation, the employer respectfully suggests that the complaint before the WRC has no merit and should be denied.