Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Health Care Assistant

 A Public Health Service

Representatives

Marie O Connor SIPTU

Human Resource 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 - 00002418

27/03/2024

On 27 March 2024, the Union submitted a Dispute to the WRC on behalf of their member, who has been employed as Health Care Attendant from 19 April 2014.

The Employer operates the Public Health Service in Ireland and did not object to an investigation of this Dispute in accordance with Section 13, Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 30 July 2024, the Employer furnished a written submission on the background in the case. This was followed by the Union submission one day later.

This is a case where both Parties were ably represented which permitted me to engage in a participative and collaborative Investigation.

This has resulted in me being in a position to make a Recommendation on the way forward in this case on consent and in the spirit of optimal staff relations.

 At the outset of this case, I flagged with both Parties, that I was very aware of the climate of a live working relationship which served as background in the case.

I am grateful to the Representatives on both sides for their input.

The Union has raised a Dispute which arose in June 2023. An issue arose for the worker in the course of his work as a Health Care Assistant on night duty on a hospital ward.

As a result of this issue, he was removed from his habitual night duty roster, active since late 2021. He has viewed this as an unfair action against him.

In addition to this alleged complaint, he sustained an unwelcome disruption to his personal life, with a knock-on loss of earnings.

On 19 June 2023, the Worker raised a grievance regarding his treatment and interpersonal difficulties. He then availed of sick leave for 8 weeks.

The Grievance procedure unfolded between 18 July 2023 and 15 February 2024 and was interspersed with appeals.

On 15 February 2024, the Worker was permitted an opportunity to return to work on his habitual ward location since 2021.

The Parties did not agree terms for that return.

 On 27 March 2024, the Union referred the Dispute to the WRC.

The Union outlined a difficulty with the Employers adherence to their own procedures, which had left the Worker in a displaced position. He took two months off work to address his stress levels in response to interpersonal difficulties with a Line Manager. He remains very troubled by how he believes the Hospital addressed this issue.

The Worker acknowledged that he had received an apology for this.

The failure to restore the Worker to his habitual roster of 7 nights on followed by 7 nights off had also been a barrier to his progression. The Union relied on a Sept 2021 email of confirmation that the Worker, was in fact a permanent night worker.

The Union came to hearing and claimed that the Worker sought a full restoration of his habitual base and habitual roster prior to June 2023. He sought restoration of lost sick leave and compensation to address his loss of earnings as a result of the interruption to his habitual roster.

The Worker is currently working in a supportive mobile role within the hospital across a night duty roster but remains highly aggrieved.

During the course of the hearing, it emerged that the Worker is also seeking to manage a challenging set of personal circumstances alongside his working life and is highly reliant on night work to make that happen. He has engaged in an ongoing roster request system to support this.

In summary, it is the Workers case that he was not adequately heard in relation to his dispute with the Hospital, which propelled him into successive appeals of the staged grievance procedure. His ultimate goal is to put himself back into the position he held prior to the issues raised in June 2023. He views that this would restore order and his standing within the hospital.

The Union confirmed that the Worker has since activated a number of complaints against staff members in the pursuance of his ultimate goal for restoration.

The Employer operates the Public Health Service in Ireland and has employed the Worker as a Health Care Assistant (HCA) since April 2014.

He has worked a succession of Night Shifts in both mobile and static patterns within the Hospital.

The Employer has outlined that it wished to apologise for any distress caused to the Worker. However, they also outlined that they had endeavoured to resolve the workers grievances at an early juncture in July 2023, when his grievances were partly upheld.

The Director of Nursing managed the appeal. A letter of apology issued in relation to the complaint on interpersonal matters in October 2023. The grievance outcome proposed further engagement.

The feedback on the grievance appeal reflected the hospital norm was that in line with the Workers contract.

“Staff should rotate between days and nights “

The Director set out her strident concerns against 7-night continuous working as

“Not good for your well being “

The Worker appealed onwards under stage 3 of the grievance procedure to the Employee Relations Manager. This was not upheld.

The Management team approached the hearing with a problem-solving approach, keen to resolve the impasse for the worker but strident in their view that the 7 nights continuous work pattern is now a historical shift, barely present in the hospital, outside of a red circled arrangement.

They exhibited references to research of health and safety in support of that viewpoint.

The Management Team also came to hearing concerned that the workers level of dissatisfaction had recently intensified in the form of fresh allegations regarding interpersonal conflict with his Senior Manager.

The Worker did not have an individual tailored risk assessment on the 7-night pattern as the Employer has distanced themselves globally from this historical shift.

The Employer denied delaying in managing the workers stated difficulties and pointed to some brevity on his sick certificates June to August 2023.

The Management Team took a considerable period of time aimed at helpful clarifications on how the hospital night workforce is structured in the aftermath of the Covid 19 Pandemic and the number of initiatives and incentives necessarily taken to ensure service delivery.

It is the Employers case that the email of 9 September 2023 did not guarantee a permanent roster of night duty on a particular unit and the contract of employment from March 2017 reflects.

“You will be required to work the agreed roster / on call arrangements advised to you by your line manager.”

The Employer contended that the Worker was welcome to resume work in his habitual base but not on a permanent roster of 7 continuous nights on. They said this work pattern was neither advisable nor available for the Worker.

The Employer did not agree that the Worker faced a barrier in seeking to restore his standing and ward base at the Hospital. The Employer expressed some reservation at the successive worker complaints against staff at the hospital and called for some reflection on that model.

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

As I stated earlier, this is a dispute within a live employment, which always takes a special effort to investigate as nobody wants to make matters worse than they currently are. Neither do I wish to take on a mantle of management when there were sufficient managers present at hearing.

I have been very encouraged by the candour of the parties in this claim and observed a mutual respect through the collaborative process.

The Worker is a long serving loyal worker who has spent most of his working life at the hospital in a mobile worker capacity. In September 2021, he accepted an invitation to take on a night duty pattern of 7 nights on what became his habitual ward. He enjoyed this work and reflected this in his submission. Most important for him he managed to juggle work and home, which comprised a challenging personal life.

Following the events of June 2023, the Worker was disappointed at how the issue was managed and placed himself in the “safe zone “of sick leave for 8 weeks as his grievance was addressed.

I have observed that at the first two stages of the grievance, the worker was partially successful in identifying a path forward for himself, but these roads were not tested by him, but rather appealed.

It is my opinion, in holding steadfast to a one option only outcome of full restoration to habitual ward and roster, the worker missed some of the early gains in his case.

I accept that this must now be recorded as missed opportunities and placed in the past.

However, I have been struck by the Workers plain declaration of feeling displaced at the hospital which has given life to a steady stream of complaints. I appreciate that he wants to move away from that model of not belonging and drifting.

From the Management point of view, I have been struck by the high regard shown to the Worker, but this was countered with a strong belief that continuance in 7 continuous nights was not viable.

It is apparent to me that the Worker is currently a vulnerable worker as he seeks to manage home and work but there may have been occasions where he misdirected some of that vulnerability towards his employer, who demonstrated the high level of requests for roster changes granted over the past year.

The Worker is based in a supportive yet challenging workplace.

At the conclusion of the hearing , where both parties were candid on how they saw things currently and how they would like to travel a path to equilibrium in staff relations , the Parties agreed the following action plan , which I am pleased to place into a Recommendation to resolve this tense dispute .

I have found merit in this dispute.

I wish the Parties every success for the future.

 An extended Grievance process.