Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Paramedic

Ambulance Service

Representatives

Brian Hewitt UNITE The Union

 Employee Relations Manager

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 - 00001915

23/10/2023

The Worker is employed as a paramedic for approximately 20 years.  He returned to work in 2019 following an injury at work and he believes that he was subjected to an upskilling process that was not in keeping with the Employer’s policy and as a result he endured financial costs.  His grievance was not responded to within the timeframes set out in the Employer’s policy.

The Worker was out on sick leave following an injury and work and when he was certified fit to resume duty, he was required to upskill in order to be certified as competent in the various duties associated with his role.  There are a number of different pathways available to upskill and these are aligned with the period of absence. As the Worker was on sick leave for just under two years (102 weeks) he agreed a particular pathway with the relevant Officer.  He commenced this pathway and was then told that the pathway had to change, and he had to attend a college for a period of 12 weeks.  This college is approximately 55-60 kilometres from his assigned ambulance base.  The Worker believes that this pathway was not the one that was undertaken by colleagues in a similar situation.  Part of the requirements of the revised pathway was that he would have to complete specific exams although he was already qualified. 

Attending the college posed a number of difficulties for the Worker.  He had to organise crèche arrangements and as he also has a child with special needs, he had to organise care for this child.  Prior to this the Worker was able to organise his childcare arrangements due to the flexibility of his roster and that of his partner.

Attending the college also meant that the Worker would incur driving costs including tolls.  All of this had an impact on him.  He failed his exams, and another pathway was required to be put in place and this was referred to as the “privileging course”.  He also had to attend training at a west of Ireland centre, and he was paid milage and subsistence for this.  However, when he attended the first college, he was only paid the equivalent of public transport and subsistence.  At the hearing the Worker also stated that the travel time from his normal base to the college resulted in a longer working day and his claim for overtime for this period was rejected.

The Worker submitted a formal grievance in relation to these issues on 02/08/2022 and the hearing of this grievance took place on 21/10/2022.  He raised this grievance to level 2 on 09/03/2023 and did not hear anything about the outcome as of the date of the hearing, 27/3/2024.  It is the Workers position that these delays are well outside the timeframes in the Employer’s grievance policy.

It is the Workers position that he was subjected to irregular and unfair treatment when he was placed on three different pathways and this treatment continued when the Employer altered their travel and subsistence payments.  The Employer has an obligation to investigate grievances within the timeframes or within a reasonable timeframe, but 34 weeks is not acceptable.

The Worker is seeking a recommendation in relation to (a) the non-payment of his approved overtime (b) the repayment of tolls and milage he did not receive when the respondent decided to pay only public transport costs and (c) payment for the costs of his childcare arrangements. 

The Worker has put an overall figure of €6,670 on this claim.

The Employer provides an ambulance service, and the emergency medical care practitioners are trained to a high standard in order to maintain professional competence.   The educational and training requirements are prescribed by the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council (PHECC) who is the regulator.  The responsibility for verifying a paramedic’s competence sits with the Employer.  Once a paramedic is assessed as competent, they are registered with PHECC and then the paramedic is privileged by the Clinical Director.

The Worker was placed on the Injury At Work Scheme from 29/12/2017 until 15/12/2019 which is a period of almost two years.  On his return to work the Worker was required to undertake a pathway to facilitate him resume duty in clinical practice as a paramedic. During the Workers absence the PHECC updated the clinical practice guidelines. When the Worker was attending the course in the west of Ireland, he was paid overnight subsistence and milage as there was no public transport available from his home base to the college.   When he had to attend a different college in the Dublin area for an eight-week period he was paid public transport rates which is the standard practice.  When the Worker failed his exams, he had to undertake a bespoke training process to enable him to reach the required standard and he was successful in that process.

The Clinical Director will only privilege those practitioners who meet the criteria.  The process was applied to the Worker in the same manner as it is applied to all paramedics who return after a lengthy absence.

The Employer submits that it must adhere to the National Financial Regulations which provide that a Worker should only use their own vehicle when no public transport is available.  The Worker was paid the appropriate subsistence and public transport rates for the period 3/2/2020 to 27/03/2020 and this amounted to €2,388.73.  The actual difference between this rate and the milage rate is €110.53.

The Worker submitted his initial grievance on 22/08/2022 which was a period in excess of two years after he had attended the eight-week course.   His delay in submitting the grievance made it very difficult for a manager to examine and respond to the grievance.  As the Worker raised a number of issues in his grievance it took a considerable amount of time to obtain the relevant background information.  After the outcome of stage one was issued the Worker then lodged a stage two grievance.

The Employer submits that some of the issues raised in the Worker’s grievance were outside the scope of the grievance procedure.  The initial complaint raised issues in relation to childcare costs, reasonable accommodation and discrimination which he alleges occurred when he was attending the first course in the Dublin area.  The Worker did not lodge any complaint under the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

The Employer submits that they cannot be held responsible for a Worker’s childcare costs when they are attending work and regardless of the circumstances in relation to the attendance. The Worker in this case had received all the travel and subsistence payments due to him and these were paid as set out in the regulations pertaining to such payments.  The Worker was not penalised as a result of raising a grievance.

The Employer noted at the hearing that the payment of overtime was a new issue and as this was approved by his line manager, they undertook to follow this up and if it was not paid it will be paid through the payroll process.  The Employer will confirm their findings on this to the Worker and his trade union as soon as possible.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. This has been a protracted dispute and it has its origin in the upskilling process which the Worker was required to undertake after a prolonged period of absence.    It is clear that the Employer has to comply with the clinical requirements set out by the PHECC and while this changed during the Workers absence the Employer has no veto in relation to its implementation.  I accept that there was some ambiguity in relation to this initially as it was a revised process.  As it stands the Worker has now reached the required standard and the only issues are the payment due while attending the course and the delays in processing his grievances.

The Employer is obliged to adhere to the financial regulations in relation to the payment of travel and subsistence. I accept that there was a degree of inconvenience in relation to having to attend a college away from his normal place of work.  However, this attendance was a prerequisite to enable him to return to his normal duty as a competent paramedic.  It is not an option for an Adjudication Officer to amend the travel and subsistence arrangements which the Employer is obliged to implement.  In that context I am recommending that the Worker accept that he has received his entitlements.

The Industrial Relations Act 1969 at Section 13(2) makes provision as follows:

“(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of Workers) exists or is apprehended and involves Workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.”

The Employer has submitted that the arrangements as regards payment of travel and subsistence to the Worker were identical to workers who have been previously and currently required to attend an upskilling course.

I have concluded that the union's claim advanced on behalf of the Worker relates, in reality, to a claim for a change in the travel and subsistence  arrangements applicable to a worker who is required to attend a similar upskilling course. It is clear that any such change would affect the travel and subsistence arrangements of any worker who would find themselves in similar circumstances. The matter therefore is connected with the rate of pay paid to a body of workers who are required to attend a course in similar circumstances to those experienced by the Worker in the within trade dispute.

I have concluded  that the Act at section 13(2) makes clear that an Adjudication Officer has no jurisdiction in relation to this part of the dispute under this section of the Act.

The Worker is also seeking compensation for childcare costs incurred as a result of having to upskill.  The concession of this claim would have significant implications for the Employer and would have consequential implications for other Employers.  As outlined above this claim relates to a claim which could be applicable to a worker who is also required to attend a similar upskilling process or course.  This would be a significant change in the payments made to workers and this part of the claim is also connected with the rate of pay paid to a body of Workers who are required to attend a course in similar circumstances to those experienced by the Worker in the within trade dispute.

I have concluded  that the Act at section 13(2) makes clear that an Adjudication Officer has no  jurisdiction in relation to this part of the dispute under this section of the Act.

The Worker’s grievance is clearly a current issue and by any measure the delays in processing have contributed to the Worker’s unpleasant experience in his workplace.  While the Employer highlights the complexity of the issues and the appropriateness or otherwise of some of these issues to the grievance procedure, I have concluded that these do not justify or explain the delay.   In such circumstances I am recommending that the Employer pay the sum of €1,650 to the Worker as a result of the breach of the grievance procedure by the Employer.

Travel and subsistence rate.  Costs associated with course.  Grievance procedure.