Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Nurse

Health Service Provider

Representatives

Caroline Brilly Psychiatric Nurses Association (PNA)

David Beegan Human Resources Department, Dublin South

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 - 00000750

11/10/2022

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

IR - SC - 00000902

29/11/2022

There are two complaints before me one relating to a claim to be restore to fulltime hours and a claim for loss of earnings amounting to €25,000 for failing to restore the worker to fulltime hours.

The worker is a nurse and several years ago applied for job share and was granted same. She works equivalent to .5 of fulltime role.

As her circumstances changed, she requested to be allowed to return to fulltime hours in the existing unit that she has been in for some time.

That request could not be facilitated as that particular unit was only approved for 7.5 nurse roles. However, it was possible for her to obtain fulltime hours in another work area.

The worker claims that this response is positioned as reasonable it is fundamentally unfair and unjust.

The unit is currently using temporary agency staff and also has an ongoing requirement for overtime that is in excess of what her hours would cost the service. In fact, the proposal to put her back on fulltime hours would be a cost saving.

Her Union has stated that this concession if granted would not set a precedent.

The worker has stated that the facts clearly show that there is an ongoing need for additional hours. The service has a difficulty retaining and attracting nurses in any event. There is no moratorium on recruiting nurses as there is a shortage of nursing staff in the service. The Union have provided a guarantee that this particular case will not be use as a precedent for other members.

The worker can move to fulltime hours but not in this area. In fact, her hours can be split between the area she works in and another area where there is approval for headcount. The worker is looking for a solution that is not within the remit of local management. The headcount for each unit is approved centrally and there is no delegated to local management. As the position is not approved for the additional hours it cannot be conceded in this particular work unit. No loss has been caused by this decision. The worker receives her fair allocation of overtime hours based on her availability. The issue in this case is the focus on moving back to fulltime hours in this unit.

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

Another dispute was also raised with the Commission and that is a duplicate. There are two material matters referred for a recommendation:

1.       Compensation for loss of earnings

2.       Restoration of fulltime hours

The basic principles in Industrial Relations is fairness and that a decision does not have negative effects within the wider group. The Union in this case have given an assurance in writing that it will not.

There is no right to loss of earnings in this case as there is no right to the restoration of fulltime hours in this unit. The worker had the opportunity to part split and work the hours up in another area. On this basis I do not recommend any concession on this dispute/grievance.

The worker articulates her dispute as follows:

The reason for my grievance is that I believe I have been treated very unfairly. I have sought to get up to full time hours in AOT since September 2020 . Despite my employer being aware of same they have continously refused to grant me full time hours in delete outreach . They are paying out overtime to cover staff shortages instead, at the moment I am covering maternity leave on a full time basis however this concludes at the beginning of September I have corresponded with management and they maintain that they are unable to guarantee any increase in my hours in the unit

And she also seeks compensation for this failure as follows:

Claim. Ms XXX is seeking to be compensated for her financial losses as she was denied access to full-time hours despite there being at the time and currently overtime available in the AOT. Ms XXX asserts that there is an onus on the employer to manage budgets in a responsible way and it would have been more cost effective to employ her on a full-time basis as opposed to filling gaps in the AOT on overtime.

In this case there is right to fulltime hours or to any compensation. The merits of this case do not justify any compensation.

However, there are merits in the workers case that she should be allowed to work fulltime hours in an area where there is an ongoing need for overtime which is systemic and the effect of this would in fact reduce cost. Industrial Relations requires flexibility from both parties. As the Union has given a commitment that any move to restore this worker to fulltime hours would not be used as a precedent, I recommend that the Employer agrees to this request. There is no right to this concession; however, it is the fair and sensible solution where there is an ongoing structural need for the hours to be worked

Fulltime hours