ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00043213
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Healthcare Worker | A Health Service Provider |
|
|
|
Representatives | Alastair Purdy & Co |
|
Dispute:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA - 00054359 | 17th June 2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12th August 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
The hearing was heard remotely pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The employer did not attend.
Background:
The worker submits that the employer failed to allow her to return to full time working despite: the provisions within her contract, satisfying all the relevant requirements to return to work and raising the matter with her employer. This caused unnecessary stress for the worker with the extra burden and load she had to carry and the impact it had on those she provided support to.
|
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker submits that a dispute exists with regards to returning to full time hours and the stress the employer caused by failing to allow the worker to return as provided for under her CID following the expiry of the Job-Sharing Contract. Clause 12 of her job-sharing contract directly addresses the issue of returning to full time employment subject to two conditions which the worker satisfied, namely a suitable vacancy and having job sharing for a period of not less than three years. The worker worked on a contract of indefinite duration and in 2017, entered into a three-year job- sharing contract which did not override her contract of indefinite duration (CID). It was the worker’s understanding that upon the cessation of the job-sharing contract she would automatically return to full-time work. Despite her bringing it to the attention of her manager Ms A on numerous occasions Ms A did not do what was necessary to have the worker revert to her full-time work. This caused undue stress for the worker by her managers’ failure to do what was needed to be done. The worker provided numerous emails of raising this grievance with her manager. The result has been a significant increase in the worker’s workload and responsibilities and has further resulted in a detrimental impact on the needs of vulnerable older adults due to servicing them with just half a post during COVID when the mental health needs of older adults were especially highlighted due to over 65s being deemed most at risk and required to cocoon. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer did not attend. The employer was put on notice of the hearing dated 7th July 2022. The employer requested an adjournment on 3rd August 2022 owing to “to the need to take leave to look after her grandson due to unforeseen circumstances”. The worker’s representative objected to the adjournment and the employer was advised on 8th August 2022 that her request for adjournment was denied and it was noted that there was no supporting documentation attached to her request for adjournment and was advised of the appeals process. The employer appealed this on 10th August 2021 by email at 14:38 and advised they “remain unavailable”andonce again failed to provide supporting documentation. On 10th August 2022 at 15:48 the employer advised she remained “unable to attend this Friday due to leave commitments in addition to other exceptional personal circumstances” and once again did not provide any supporting relevant documentation. The employer was advised the hearing would go ahead and that the employer should submit their appeal with supporting documentation to the Adjudication Officer for consideration on the date of the hearing. Nothing further was received by the employer and the employer did not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The employer did not attend the hearing and I am satisfied that the employer was on notice of the hearing. The worker submits that the employer failed to revert her to full time working despite numerous requests by the worker to do so. It would appear that the worker satisfied all the necessary requirements to return to full time working yet the employer continued to fail to do what was necessary to process the return of the worker to full time hours. The worker’s job-sharing partner ceased to be the job sharer partner, which the employer appears to have been able to process but yet left the worker with an extraordinary situation of having to carry the load of a full-time worker during Covid when the mental health needs of older adults were especially highlighted. I recommend that the employer pay the worker compensation of €1,000 for the unnecessary distress caused to the worker and the employer’s failures to process the worker to full time working in a timely manner. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the employer pay the worker compensation of €1,000 for the unnecessary distress caused to the worker and the employer’s failures to process the worker to full time working in a timely manner. |
Dated: 3rd February 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Job sharing, return to full time, industrial relations |