Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Paramedic

Health Service

Representatives

Mr. Des Courtney, SIPTU

Self-Represented

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 - 00003482

27/11/2024

On 27th November 2024, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that his Employer did not properly implement a recommendation previously issued from this forum. By response, the Employer conceded this allegation in part, but submitted that the matter had already been deemed to be resolved.

Following the Employer’s positive election to engage in the dispute, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 18th March 2025. The hearing was held in person at the Mullingar Courthouse, Co. Westmeath.

Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.  

The Worker is engaged, on a long-standing basis, as a paramedic with the Employer. In 2014, a vacancy arose that, should the Worker have been appointed to the same, would have resulted in a drastic reduction to his commuting time. The Worker was not successful in his application for this role and he appealed the Employer’s decision in this regard in accordance with the relevant internal procedures. The Worker was informed that this appeal was unsuccessful on 26th August 2014, which was duly appealed to the next level of management two days later. For reasons unknown the Worker, no contemporaneous outcome was issued in relation to this process.

Almost four years later, on 16th August 2018, the Worker raised a grievance in relation to the failures of the Respondent in relation to the procedure. Again, this application was ignored by management, resulting in a trade dispute being referred to this forum on 25th April 2019. By subsequent recommendation, the Adjudicator stated that the Employer should engage with the Worker in relation to the grievance raised by him within six weeks and pay the Worker the sum of €2,000 in compensation. This recommendation was not appealed and the sum of €2,000 was paid and accepted.

Notwithstanding the unambiguous contents of the recommendation, the Employer again refused to meet with the Worker, initially stating that the payment of compensation satisfied the recommendation and finalised the matter. Following the return to the workplace following the Covid-19 pandemic, the Employer met with the Worker on 25th April 2019, and ultimately rejected the Worker’s claim.

By submission, the Worker stated that his length of service entitled him to the transfer by operation of the Employer’s internal rules. While the Worker did accept that he was transferred in 2017, he stated that he incurred considerable costs for the three-year period during which he should have been transferred to the alternative site. In this respect, the Worker submitted that his base should be retrospectively amended and he should be permitted to apply for the appropriate milage and travel allowances for the relevant three year period.  

By submission, the Employer stated that the present matter had been concluded and that they had no further case to answer in this regard. The Employer accepted that the matter had been subject of a former trade dispute and that a recommendation issued that suggested a payment of compensation in respect to the delays in the process. Given that the Employer did not contest this finding, the recommended compensation was paid, and the matter was deemed to be at an end. While the recommendation did suggest that the parties met within six weeks in an attempt to resolve the issue, neither party sought to pursue this issue at that time and the matter was deemed to be closed.

In November 2023, the Worker issued correspondence seeking to re-active the matter. Given that four years had passed at this juncture, the relevant representative from the Employer initially stated that the matter was closed. On the Workers’ insistence that the matter continue, the parties met in October 2024. During this meeting, the Worker sought payment of €31,426, in respect of travel and subsistence he believed he incurred approximately seven years previous. In circumstances whereby the Employer had no ability to concede to this request, and they did not agree with the Worker’s rationale for the payment itself, the same was rejected.

By submission, the Employer stated that they acted in accordance with all relevant internal procedures throughout this process. While they accepted that a delay arose in relation to the initial investigation of the grievance, this was dealt with by way of the initial recommendation and the matter was deemed to be closed. Many years later, the Worker sought to re-activate the issue, and sought a payment for travel and subsistence incurred seven years previous. Notwithstanding the fact that the matter was deemed to be closed that this stage, the Employer could not concede to this claim at this point, as the Worker did not actually incur the expenses in question. In light of the foregoing, the Employer submitted that the Worker’s application should fail.  

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

From the respective submissions of the parties, it is common case                                                                                                                                           that the present matter has formerly been the subject of a recommendation from this forum. The recommendation in question stated that the Worker should be paid the sum of €2,000 in compensation for the delay in finalising the grievance procedure. The recommendation also stated that the parties should meet within six weeks to address, and presumably finalise, the Worker’s ongoing grievance. As matters transpired, the first part of the recommendation was complied with, and the Complainant was paid the sum recommended in compensation. The current dispute relates to the latter part of the recommendation, that the parties were to meet within six weeks and seek to finalise the matter. In this respect, the Worker submitted that the Employer again neglected to comply with this aspect of the settlement and simply let the matter fall into abeyance. In the alternative, the Employer submitted that the Worker failed to pursue the grievance in question and that they had deemed the matter to be closed.

In this respect, the wording of the recommendation states that, “both parties meet to address this grievance. This should happen with immediate effect and conclude within six weeks of the date below” 

This recommendation was delivered on 9th October 2019. Approximately four years later, in late 2023, the Worker sought to address the matter and seek to have the grievance relisted and progressed to hearing. A number of issues arise in relation to this sequence of events. From the wording of the recommendation, it is not apparent which party was to instigate the process and request the resumed hearing. In this respect, the issue at hand is a grievance raised by the Worker, from which it may be inferred that the Worker is the moving party and the responsibility for requesting a meeting fell to him. In the alternative, it is also the case that the Employer is the respondent to the dispute and the only body capable of proactively arranging a meeting in this regard.

From the respective positions of the parties, it is apparent that an element of blame may attach to both sides. The Employer should have proactively sought to address and finalise the matter, and likewise the Worker should not have allowed four years to pass prior to addressing the issue. As matters now stand, the parties are in dispute in relation to a series of events that occurred over a decade previously. At some point, a dispute must extinguish with passage of time. Regarding the present dispute, it is apparent that that this time has long passed. As stated above, the subject matter of the dispute occurred over a decade previously. It is also the case that the Worker was transferred to the area in question and has been working there for the previous seven years. In these circumstances, it would be inappropriate at this remove to make any recommendation in respect to the primary facts of that dispute, nor would it be of any practical assistance to the resolution of the dispute to recommend that the parties meet again to discuss this issue.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is apparent that at least some of the blame for the current state of affairs lies with the Employer. On receipt of the earlier recommendation, which they elected not to appeal, the Employer should have taken steps to meet with the Worker and finalise the issue, particularly when the matter had been substantively delayed to that point.

In these circumstances, and in effort to finalise this long-running dispute, I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €2,000 in compensation. The acceptance of this award by the Worker will be deemed to have finalised the ongoing dispute between the parties. 

Dispute, Delay, Recommendation, Transfer