Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Healthcare Provider

Representatives

Des Courtney, SIPTU

A Representative 

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 - 00003488

29/11/2024

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer in January 1985. She is employed as a health care assistant. The Worker is also the union representative for her grade at the hospital where she is based and is currently serving on the union’s national executive.

In March 2023, the Worker raised several grievances with her employer, one of which related to concerns of an underpayment of wages of 36 hours over an eight week period. It was submitted that management carried out an investigation into the Worker’s alleged underpayment but found against her. During the subsequent appeals process and in order to verify her position, the Worker requested copies of her signed timesheets.

The union representative states that it became apparent that throughout the period, unilateral changes were made to those timesheets by management after they had been sign off by the Worker and co-signed and verified by her line manager. It was submitted that it is evident from the documents that the Worker’s payslips record a lesser amount in pay when compared with the hours recorded on the timesheets as having been worked.

The Worker states that she subsequently requested copies of her signed hours sheets for a longer period and received copies going back three years. The Worker states that again she noticed that unilateral changes had been made throughout the period. The Worker states that no prior or subsequent notification of, or explanation for these changes has ever been provided.

It was stated that the parties met on 4 April 2025 in a final and unsuccessful attempt to resolve matters locally. Documentation was handed over to management who, over a period of weeks, examined it in detail but did not uphold the Worker’s grievance.

The union representative states that the documentary evidence points to a discrepancy in pay over the five-year period from 2020 – 2024 of 857 hours, equating to approximately €13,000. The Worker is seeking a recommendation that the Employer pay her the amount of €13,000 and going forward that management should desist from making unilateral changes to the Worker’s timesheets after they have been signed and verified by her line manager.       

The Employer asserts that it does not accept that the Worker has been incorrectly paid her salary. The Employer further states that the Worker has offered no evidence to back up her claim that she has not been paid correctly.

The Employer states that the Worker has alleged that she has been underpaid her wages in the amount of €13, 000. The Employer states that a number of meetings have taken place with the Worker and her union in an effort to deal with the issue.  A meeting took place on 24 April 2025 with management, the Worker and her union representative. The Employer asserts that it was agreed that this meeting would be considered a Stage Three hearing under the grievance procedure.

It was stated that the Worker is employed as a care assistant and is assigned a permanent night roster. She works a pattern of hours whereby she is rostered for 78 hours one week and then she has a week off. The next two weeks are worked to make up 78 hours. The Employer states that over the four-week period, she works 39 hours per week.

The Employer stated that it is a matter of concern that the Worker is on a constant night duty roster which is recognised as not being best practice for staff or patients. The Employer asserts that the Worker is paid fortnightly. It states that she is paid her contracted hours every week. This in effect means that although the Worker works 78 hours one week, she does not get paid for 78 hours that week, she is paid her contracted hours.  The Employer states that the next week the Worker does not work but that does not mean that she is not paid that week. The Employer states that she still gets her contracted hours. Over the pay period, the Worker gets paid her contracted hours of 39 hours per week.

The Employer states that while the Worker claims she does not understand the rolling roster system; she is a union official of long standing and this system of recording and working hours is widely used within the Employer organisation.

The Employer states that while the Worker states that she is owed €13,000 in pay, she has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate this claim.        

The Employer states that a decision on the Stage Three Grievance was issued on 7 May 2025 wherein it was stated that the grievance was not upheld on the basis that the Worker has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate her claim.

The Employer stated that it is of the view that the Worker has been paid correctly. The Employer further stated that the Worker could have taken a claim under the Payment of Wages Act if she feels that she has not been properly paid.

The Employer asserts that the Worker is a long standing local union representative and is well versed in employment law and also had access to advice from her union on this issue. The Employer further states that the Worker had access to the most senior management within the hospital where she is assigned and had access to both ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) and CNM2 (Clinical Nurse Manager 2) who went through her payslips and rosters in detail. The Employer submits that no discrepancies were found by management during this process and no evidence was produced by the Worker to substantiate her claims of underpayment.

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

I have carefully examined the information provided by both parties in the within dispute. I note that the Worker’s claim was considered under the grievance procedure. The Employer stated that management provided all of the information sought by the Worker and that she had access to all levels of management during the grievance process. The Employer also stated that out of 20 employees who are all paid in the same manner, the assertion by the Worker that she has been singled out for underpayment does not stack up.

Having reviewed the information provided by both parties, while the Worker has made allegations of underpayment of wages; I note that the matter was dealt with in accordance with the grievance procedure and the Employer found that there was no evidence provided to substantiate the Worker’s claim of underpayment.

I note that management underwent an extensive thralling exercise in order to provide the comprehensive documentation requested by the Worker in relation to her grievance.  I am cognisant that the Worker had access to senior management within the hospital where she is assigned including an Assistant Director of Nursing and a Clinical Nurse Manager who went through her payslips and rosters in detail and found that there was no evidence of underpayment.

I note that the outcome of the Stage Three Grievance was that the grievance was not upheld on the basis that the Worker failed to provide any evidence to substantiate her claim. Having carefully reviewed the information provided, I cannot find fault with the process and procedure followed by the Employer in the manner in which management dealt with the Worker’s grievance. In those circumstances, I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.

Industrial Relations Act