Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Section Officer

Health Service

Representatives

Mr. Des Kavanagh,  HR Consultancy Limited

Self-Represented

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 - 00000761

13/10/2022

The Worker is engaged as a “Section Officer” with the Employer. On 13th October 2022, the Worker referred a dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Acts to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Employer has unilaterally amended her working pattern from four days per week, to five days per week. By response, the Employer stated that the Worker’s contractual entitlement was, at all times, a five-day working week and that any amendment to the same was temporary in nature.

In circumstances whereby the Employer positively elected to engage in the process, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 23rd May 2023. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced by either party in the course of the hearing.

The Worker submitted that since 2008, she has had a long-standing agreement whereby she would complete her working week within four days, Monday to Thursday. In September 2022, some fourteen years later, the Employer stated that she could no longer work her contracted hours in this pattern. In this regard, it was submitted that this decision was imposed unilaterally and was made without any form of meaningful consultation. The Worker submitted that during the fourteen year period, she had a working relationship with nine separate managers, from a variety of roles She stated that no manager had an issue with her working schedule, with most expressing the opinion that the extended working day was advantageous to the service.

Following a period of secondment, the Worker returned to her post in September 2022. When she returned, the Worker met with a newly appointed manager. Following a meeting with this manager, the Worker received correspondence to the effect that she would be required to work a five-day week. Following the exchange of correspondence in relation to this issue, the parties met on 7th October 2022 on an informal basis. During this meeting, the Worker alleged that no “paper trial” existed in relation to the arrangement made in 2008. Following the same, it was agreed that the parties had reached an impasse, and that the present complaint should be referred. Whilst the dispute is ongoing, the Worker submitted that the status quo should be retained. The Employer has refused to allow the same, with a salary deduction being imposed on the Worker.

By submission, the Worker stated that that she should be permitted to continue to work her contracted hours within a four-day week. She stated that there is no operational reason why an agreement that stood for 14 years cannot continue.

By response, the Employer submitted that the Worker’s application to work her contracted hours within four days was not approved by management, with no application being made under any of the Employer’s policies in this regard. While the Employer submitted that the Worker may have had a previous arrangement to work her contracted hours in a four-day period, no evidence exists that this was to be a permanent arrangement. In addition to the same, it was submitted that the Worker signed numerous documents stating that her working pattern was to be considered five days per week. The Employer submitted that the in addition to the foregoing, the requirements of the Worker’s department required her attendance five days per week. 

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Following the submission of the parties, the Adjudicator noted that the present matter had not been progressed through the Employer’s internal policies. By response, both parties stated that their respective position had been made clear and that they had reached an impasse in relation to the dispute. They both stated that following the informal meeting in this regard both parties agreed that the present dispute should be referred as a means to resolve the dispute.

In the matter of FAS -v- A Worker LCR 18332, the Labour Court held as follows,

“The Court wishes to express its concern at the failure of the parties to resolve the issues giving rise to this referral through internal procedures. Each of the issues raised affect one worker and are individual in character. The Court is a forum of last resort and its services should not be detained in dealing with issues which can and should be resolved internally by skilled and experienced industrial relations practitioners on both sides.”

In this regard, the Labour Court has consistently held that disputes within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Acts should only be referred in circumstances whereby the internal procedures in respect of resolving such disputes have been exhausted. Regarding the instant dispute, the parties have submitted that the issue has been canvassed in correspondence and was the subject of a meeting between the parties, with the respective positions being made clear in this regard. Notwithstanding the same, the fact remains that this matter has not been ventilated by means of an internal procedure, and a recommendation in this respect would serve to prejudice the outcome of the same. In this regard, I recommend that the Worker raise a formal grievance in respect of the issue, to be investigated by a person that has no previous involvement with the matter.

Whilst the same in I progress, I recommend that the status quo regarding the Worker’s contract remain in place pending an outcome from this process. For the avoidance of doubt, the Worker should be permitted to engage with her previous working pattern with no diminution in salary pending the outcome of this process.

Internal Grievance, Last Resort