Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Laura  Casey

Galway And Roscommon Education Training Board

Representatives

Dave Sexton Forsa Trade Union

Aisling McDevitt

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00046372-001

24/09/2021

The complainant gave her evidence under oath and stated as follows:

The Complainant works as a special needs assistant in Elphin College. It is alleged that the Complainant took unauthorised leave on the 3rd and 4th June 2021. The Complainant does not accept that that is factually correct. The circumstances surrounding the ambiguity are as follows:

At a meeting which took place in the first week of June following the students getting their summer holidays, the Complainant asked the principal if there would be work available for her to do on the 3rd and 4th June. She was told that there would not be. In addition, there was no work scheduled in the calendar for those dates. Arising from that she did not attend on the 3rd or 4th. On the 8th, during a meeting, she was asked why she did not attend for work on the 3rd or 4th.  She explained why. There was no further discussion about it until she received an e-mail on the 8th July stating that her wages for the two days were not being paid due to her being on unauthorised leave.

Under cross examination the complainant stated that the SNA’s only work certain days during the month of June. There was a meeting on the 28th May to discuss the June Provision. The June provision commenced on the 8th June as the academic calendar ran up to the 4th June. However, the Complainant received an email prior to the end of the academic year stating that the students would be finishing up on the 28th May but admitted that that email did not state that she was not required to attend.

Ms. Siobhan Cullen, School Principal gave evidence under oath and stated as follows:

The academic year calendar was furnished to all staff in August the previous year. The calendar is set in line with the Department of Education circulars. The year end was the 4th June.

There were a number of meetings coming up to the 4th  of June. During the meeting on the 2nd June, the fact that many of the SNA students were leaving the school in 3rd year and were enrolling in other local schools was discussed. A need was identified in relation to the SNA students. It was established that a plan had to be developed to address the issue and to rectify it. Work was given to the SNA’s to improve the service to the students. The schedule of work was expected to run well into June. The Complainant did comment on the schedule and stated had she been given the schedule earlier she could have worked on it up to and including Friday 4th June. When the Complainant did not attend for work on the 3rd, Ms. Mc Phillips called to find out where she was. Ms. Cullen was surprised that she did attend as the meeting that had commenced on the 2nd was due to be reconvened on the 3rd.

Paul Noon, who took the minutes of the meeting on the 2nd June gave evidence under oath that there was a long and detailed discussion during the meeting about the work the Complainant and the other SNA’s were to do in June. The meeting did not finish on the 2nd, and it was agreed that it would reconvene on the 3rd.

As the Complainant’s leave on the 3rd and 4th  was unauthorised, her pay for those two days was deducted.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the parties together with the documentation submitted prior to reaching a decision in this matter.

I do not accept the Complainant’s evidence that she believed that there was no work for her to do on the 3rd and 4th of June. At the very least she was due to attend the reconvened meeting that did not conclude on the 2nd. A long and detailed discussion was had on the 2nd in relation to the work the SNA’s had to do to meet the needs of the students that had been previously identified and to bring that department of the school up to standard. Furthermore, the Complainant accepted that the academic calendar, set the previous summer, in line with the Department of Education circulars, stated that the end of the academic year was the 4th June. During cross examination she accepted that the June Provision did not commence until the 8th June. She also accepted that the email, upon which she relies, did not make any mention of the staff but merely stated that the students would finish up their year on 28 May.

In all of the circumstances I can only conclude that there was no ambiguity surrounding the complainant’s obligation to attend on the 3rd and 4th and in not doing so, her leave was unauthorised. In those circumstances, the complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails.

The complaint fails.