|
FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer’s Decision No’s: ADJ-00030879 CA-00041387-001.
Union submission The Union on behalf of the Worker submitted that for the last eighteen years she had worked in a particular ward and on a set roster that provided for her to have every second Monday and Tuesday off. The Worker works four days a week on a five over seven rosters. The Union submitted that they were seeking a commitment from the Employer that the Worker would not be moved from the ward she currently works in and that she would be guaranteed every second Monday and Tuesday as her rostered days off. It is the Union’s submission that the roster set out above was not complied with on six occasions in 2020 and on twelve occasions in 2021. It is their submission that the Worker always showed flexibility when she was asked to change her days off, but she wants to establish her entitlement to have every second Monday and Tuesday rostered off and that she would remain working in her current ward. The Worker submitted that there was an agreement in 2003 that provided for this arrangement for herself and two other worker’s who have since retired. She accepted that there was no record of this agreement. The Worker processed her grievance through the Employer’s grievance procedure, but the issues could not be resolved. Employer submission The Employer submitted that it was not disputing that the Worker may have had those days off for a number of years but there was no entitlement or guarantee that she would always be given those days or given preferential treatment over other staff. In respect of where the Worker is currently working the Employer is not proposing to move her, but they cannot guarantee that she will never be moved. Prior to 2020, the Employer was utilising agency staff to cover shortfalls in staffing which provided for more flexibility in terms of the rostering of permanent staff. In 2020 the Employer moved from using agency staff to directly employing additional staff. There are now 70 people on the roster who have to be considered and facilitated. The Employer tries to facilitate requests for specific days off as much as it can, but it cannot guarantee same. The Employer submitted that the fact the Worker only wanted to work in a particular ward limited the flexibility they had to accede to her request to be rostered off on specific days. They submitted that it would be easier to facilitate such requests if the Worker is prepared to work in other areas as well. Discussion and decision The Court having carefully read all the submissions and listened to the oral submissions on the day notes the commitment of the Employer to continue to facilitate as far as is practical within the limits of the rosters the Worker’s request not to be rostered on specific days. The Court also notes that there are no plans at this time to move her from her current ward. The Court recommends that the Worker engages locally with her line management to see if more flexibility around work location would enhance the opportunities for her requests to be rostered off every second Monday and Tuesday to be facilitated. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld. The Court so decides.
NOTE |
