Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint    seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6    of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00009494-001

01/02/2017

Complaint    seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7    of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00009494-002

01/02/2017

Complaint    seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13    of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00009494-003

01/02/2017

The complainant has worked at   the respondent school, as a cleaner, for 25 years. In September, 2012 she   went out on sick leave. She remained out on leave until January, 2014. The   respondent accommodated a staggered return to work schedule for the   complainant. The complainant requested that she be allowed to return to her   five days a week schedule however at that juncture, the respondent had   somebody covering for the complainant on Tuesdays. The complainant requested   that she be allowed to return to her pre- sick leave five days a week. A   meeting was held in October, 2014 with the chairperson of the Board of   Management and with the Principal. At this meeting she requested that she be   allowed to work on Tuesday’s. She was   told that somebody else was covering her Tuesday shift. She was made feel   terrible. She continued to do the four days a week until the Summer of 2016.   She made arrangements to visit her daughter on Tuesdays from then on.

During the Summer of 2016 things started to   change. She was asked to give her keys back. Her hours were reduced to 2   hours per day from 2.5 hours per day. The lady who was doing the Tuesday work   started to do five days a week. In September, 2016 when the school re-opened   the complainant continued to do fours days a week, two hours a day. However,   she was paid for 10 hours. That stopped in January. Thereafter she was only   paid for the work she did.

It is the complainant’s hope   that she will be allowed to work 2.5 hours per day four days a week.

In relation to the   complainant’s bonus, she accepts that she was paid a bonus of €200 for   Christmas 2016 and €400 for summer, 2017.

The respondent accepts that the   complainant has been cleaning the school, without issue for over 25 years.   She is a good employee. However, a Health and Safety concern emerged in   relation to staff being on the premises alone after school hours. The new Chairperson   of the Board of Management stated that she had grave concerns about the   complainant working alone in the school. If anything happened to her she   might not be found until the following day. She also had concerns about the   number of people who had keys to the school. She stated that there was people   coming and going at all hours of the day and night. She wanted to put a stop   to that and to put some procedures in place where everyone’s access and   egress to and from the premises could be monitor. This was for security and   health and safety reasons. Furthermore, she noted that the complainant did   not have a contract of employment. She gave the complainant a contract and   asked her to get advice on it and to come back to her with any questions   /alterations she wanted to make.

The complainant works 40 weeks   per annum. She is paid for 52. There was a custom and practice in that regard   and the Board of Management are happy to honour that.

When the complainant was out   sick the caretaker carried out some of her cleaning duties. When she returned   she refused to work with him. She said she was afraid of him because he   carried a knife. The caretaker does carry a small knife, which he uses as   part of his role as caretaker. He is an ex- garda, with an impeccable employment   history.

In September , 2016 when the complainant returned after the   summer vacation she was asked to work five days a week, two hours per day.   There was a contract cleaner in the school also who was also asked to work   five days a week, two hours per day. The respondent, for the aforementioned   health and safety reasons wanted the two cleaners working together in the   school. That way neither of them would have to be on the premises alone. The   complainant, having previously requested a five days a week schedule, refused   to work on Tuesdays. She said she had made alternative arrangements for the   Tuesday. The caretaker carried out the complainant’s role on Tuesdays. That   way the complainant’s portion of the school was being cleaned and the   contract cleaner was not left on the premises alone. However, it did mean   that the caretaker was unable to carry out his duties.

The respondent pays for the   three ancillary workers, two cleaners and one caretaker and one secretary,   from a department ancillary grant.   There is a very specific sum available to pay for the ancillary work.

The chairperson of the Board   wrote the complainant in December, 2016 requesting that she work five days a   week, two hours per day. She was informed that from January, 2017 she would only   be paid for the hours she worked.

The complainant continues to   work only four days a week.

The complainant is hopeful that following this hearing,   she will be allowed to return to her fours days a week, 2.5 hours per day schedule.  

I accept the respondent’s reasoning for the change in the   working practice. It is not recommended from a health and safety or from a   security prospective that the complainant be allowed to work on the premises   alone. If the complainant were to fall   ill or were to injure herself during the course of her work, or if there was   a break in whilst she was there alone, the respondent could find themselves   legally liable for complainant. Not alone are they entitled to protect   themselves from any such situation but it is their legal duty to protect the   complainant. It is for that reason   that I recommend that the complainant should return to work five days a week,   two hours per day and be available to work with the other contract cleaner.

I am satisfied that the complainant was paid her bonus in   December, 2016 and June, 2017. Therefore, I dismiss her claim pursuant to   Section 6 Payment of Wages Act 1991.

CA- 9494- 003

I recommend that the complainant return to a five days a   week, two hours per day ( 2.30pm – 4.30pm)working schedule.

CA- 9494-001

I dismiss the claim.