Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

Health Service Provider

Representatives

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 - 00000915

06/12/2022

In her original complaint to the WRC – received on the 6th.Dec. 2022 – the claimant complained of  “ Excessive Workloads with no base to work from and working above her pay grade without appropriate remuneration”.The hearing of the 12th.June 2023 was adjourned to allow for direct discussions between the parties with a view to settling the matter  and the claimant’s representative advised on the 7th.Aug. 2024  that all matters had been resolved with the exception of the matter of a base from which the claimant could claim correct mileage expenses  over the period 2021-2023.

The claimant’s representative submitted that after the 2023 hearing , the respondent assigned the claimant to a base at D and stated that while  the claimant was prepared to accept this compromise no agreement was arrived at with respect to what the claimant should be paid in lieu of expenses for the above mentioned period.

The representative referenced the employers Financial Regulations which provide :

“Travel will only be reimbursed for a necessary absence from the “Normal Place of Work” – the place where the employee normally performs the duties of their employment .The respondent’s premises whereby the employee is based will be regarded as the official place of work for the employee where Travel is an integral part of the job involving daily appointments with clients , colleagues or suppliers…”The regulations also provide that “ Where an employee undertakes an official journey directly from home or returns home directly , the mileage will be calculated as the lower distance from home or their workbase”.

It was submitted that the claimant  was never given a base when she took up her duties and was instructed to  use Lkas a base for the purpose of claiming mileage expenses despite having no office there , not being afforded the use of any facilities there  and it being a considerable distance from where she had been employed previously.

It was submitted that the claimant had calculated the difference between Lk and the base she had been assigned in D.She estimated that a total of €7,070.68 was owed across the 3 year period from 2021-2023.It was submitted that the claimant had incurred significant costs because of an omission of a previous manager in assigning her a base and that accordingly the complaint should be upheld.

The respondent’s representative submitted as follows :

Introduction

 The referral to the WRC was made by the claimant   v. the  employer  as a complaint seeking adjudication under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. In prior email exchange, it is confirmed between the parties to the dispute that the outstanding question for you to consider Adjudicator in this Hearing is the question of the employee base for travel expense purposes in the period 11th June 2021 to August 2023. It is claimed by the employee that her base should be deemed to be D whereas the Employer stated the employee base to be Lk. The Employee claim is valued at €7070.68. The Employer is content that the base for travel purposes was correctly identified as Lk and properly understood by employee and managers to be so.

 Background

 The claimant is a CNMII (Clinical Nurse Manager II) employee in D  Intellectual Disability Services. Her  substantive permanent post is CNMII St. M Residential Service, D Intellectual Disability Services. She  is currently on approved unpaid leave from the employment and working for another employer  for the past 11 months.

 To facilitate  the claimant  with her return to work following a period of extended sick leave, it was agreed with the retired previous Disability Service manager (JL) that the claimant would work in an alternative role and undertake the Provider Nominee (PN) and annual review reports, on a phased basis as part of the Occupational Health recommendations. The PN job entailed travel to various other ID Service locations in the county . The base of this role was in the ID Office Lk. The claimant   was enabled to work from home for a period of time in line with her Occupational Health report and COVID pandemic recommendations of that time.

The claimant submitted a grievance which was not resolved to the satisfaction of the employee under Stage 1 or 2 of the respondent’s Grievance procedure, and accordingly was referred to  Head of Human Resources - , for Hearing and Determination at Stage 3. This Hearing was conducted on the 27th July 2022 . The Head of HR  in the Stage 3 outcome made a number of recommendations –

 · “I recognize that from your perspective there remain outstanding issues which you are keen to seek a resolution to in relation to your current and former work assignment. These include confirming your work assignment and base going forward, reporting relationship and agreement on the respective roles of the teams to which you are part of. In this regard, as a path to resolution I am recommending that the parties concerned (line managers and you) enter into a process of mediation.

 · If accepted by you, Mediation allows parties an opportunity to address issues in a confidential, private and safe environment. This is a voluntary process, however I am recommending this route as a path to resolution of outstanding items concerning your current and proposed future work assignment. I enclose a leaflet which outlines the mediation service and which I hope is helpful to providing information on the processes involved.” (Appendix 1)

 Following the Stage 3 outcome,  the claimant confirmed her agreement to participate in mediation in an effort to seek to resolve the outstanding items. Both the claimant  and her manager Ms H entered into mediation. The mediator met with Ms H and the claimant  separately prior to the joint mediation. This Mediation was facilitated through the employer’s  Mediation Service and took place on 26th January 2023. During the medication, the mediator informed Ms H that the claimant   made a request if she could avail of an office closer to her home. Ms H advised the mediator that the claimant was in a temporary role and her base was in the Intellectual Disability office in Lk. The mediator asked if further consideration could be given due to claimant’s health concerns and if one of the residential houses within the Disability Service in  F  could be used as an office space for her. Ms H advised that this request to use the residential houses could not be facilitated as this was residents home and would be a breach of the regulations. The F location is regulated by HIQA. At this meeting, Ms H agreed that there was an office space in the ADay Centre in D and that  that the claimant could utilise  same as her office. Subsequent to the January meeting the claimant  did not indicate acceptance of nor did she use this work location as a base at the A Day Centre in D from January 2023 – September 2023 when she then embarked on unpaid leave and work for  an alternative employer  in Lk.

Complaint

 A s referenced earlier the nature of this complaint is now understood to relate solely to payment of travel expenses to the claimant . (Appendix 2). Travel Expense payments in  the employment  are governed by National Financial Regulation (NFR).

 In line with the National Financial Regulations page 11,

 “Each employee who travels must have Approval to Travel Certification These authorisations must be amended where necessary and reviewed annually for the following:

 · employees who no longer need to travel in connection with work should be removed from the authorisation list

 · payments should never be processed for an employee where no authorisation exists

 · the authorisation must be approved by a suitably delegated authorising staff member

 · where HR and Payroll Self Service is the system in use, the employee must upload their travel privileges documents

The authorisation shall specify where applicable:

 · date upon which the travel expense payment will start and end

 · the employee’s base for travel expense purposes” (Appendix 3)

 In line with the National Financial Regulations, the claimant  had completed the Annual Travel Setup/ Authorisation, Declaration and Disclaimer Travel forms which I attach as Appendix 4. The claimant confirmed her Work Location/ Base on these forms as ID Services,  C Hospital , Lk. These forms were completed by the claimant  for the period January 2021 – January 2022, December 2021 – December 2022, December 2022 – December 2023 and were all signed by the claimant

 The claimant  was correctly paid travel expense from the Lkenny  base or her home in line with the NFR Regulations whilst in the post completing the PN and annual review reports. It would be incorrect and contrary to the respondent’s NFR to pay travel expense from a claimed base in D which was not accepted by the employee and never operated as such by the employee “Where an employee undertakes an official journey directly from home or returns home directly, the mileage will be calculated as the lower of the distance from home or from their work base.” As further evidence that the claimant  was aware her base was the Intellectual Disability Services office in C Hospital , Lk, I attach a Study Leave application from the claimant where her base is identified as ID Office, St C’s Campus and signed same dated 26th August 2021. (Appendix 5) On the basis of this submission and related documentation, the Employer respectfully says the complaint before you Adjudicator is without merit, and asks you to dismiss it.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I do not consider it appropriate to give consideration to the exchanges between the claimant and her line manager which were   referenced by the respondent  as these exchanges  were made as part of a mediation process and consequently were confidential .

Throughout the hearing , the parties made claims and counter claims with regard  to reverting to each other on the matter of the claimant’s office/base. Ultimately , I accept that the responsibility for providing an office and designating a base rests with the employer .It is clear from the respondent’s own submission and in particular the  notes of the Stage 3 grievance hearing on the 27th.July 2022 that the claimant was aggrieved with the employer’s failure to formalise a base for her. The employer for their part have questioned the bona fides of the complaint in circumstances where the claimant signed up to Lk as her base when lodging her expenses claim.For her part the claimant was adamant that she was acting on instructions to do so and would not otherwise have her claim approved.It is not clear why the claimant did not put on record that she was operating under protest with respect to this instruction – a term with which she was familiar as is evident from her original submission . It appears from the submissions of the parties that all parties were aware that the claimant was operating from home. The claimant  referred her complaint to the WRC in Dec. 2022.

Taking all of the forgoing into account , having regard to the protracted nature of the dispute and recognising that the circumstances of the claimant’s illness and alternative assignment are unique  I am recommending in full and final settlement of this dispute that the respondent pay the claimant a compensatory sum of €3,750 .This recommendation is made having regard to the unique circumstances pertaining in  this  case and cannot be invoked or relied upon at any other forum.