ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044080

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Ivan Melia	Health Service Executive Hse

Representatives

Brian Hewitt, Unite the Union

Eamonn Ross, Employee Relations Department

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00054734-001	27/01/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/11/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Both parties agreed the facts were not in contention, accordingly the oath or affirmation was not administered.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant submitted that although the respondent pays on-call allowance, it does not pay for public holidays when a staff member is not working. He confirmed that when he was working on public holidays, he was paid for work undertaken but that when he was not working on public holidays but was simply on call, he was not paid for those public holidays.

When asked to provide detail as regards which public holidays he was working for and which he was not for the previous six or twelve months he was not in a position to do so.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent submitted that the complainant was paid an on-call allowance. This allowance included being available to work on public holidays. However, when the complainant worked for a public holiday, he was paid additional wages for working that particular day. The respondent confirmed that there was no additional payment for non-attendance in the workplace on a public holiday. The respondent submitted that the complainant has not provided any detail and in the circumstances, it was unable to address the complaint in any further detail.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complainant has not provided any detail in relation to his complaint going back either six or twelve months. In the absence of specifics relating to the detail of the compliant, I find that complaint is not well founded.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Having regard to the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that the compliant is not well founded.

Dated: 01/12/23

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Key Words:

Organisation of Working Time Act – on-call allowance – payment for non-attendance on public holidays – no specifics provided – not well-founded