Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

Vernon Hegarty SIPTU

 Emily Mahon Employee Relations Manager

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 - 00001140

02/03/2023

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

IR - SC - 00001141

02/03/2023

The claimant commenced employment  as a Paramedic with the respondent from the 5th.May 1981.He was notified by the respondent on the 10th.August 2021 that he was being relocated  from L to S  for 4-6 months to accommodate construction and fire safety works.The claimant sought subsistence payments  for the days he was away from Base at S .The matter was processed through the respondent’s grievance procedure without a satisfactory resolution being achieved .The claimant was further aggrieved about the substantive matter of  his move from his base at L to the S base  and contended that the respondent was in breach of their own procedures in failing to complete the  processing of  this element of the complaint  through the respondent’s grievance procedure. The claimant was also aggrieved with the protracted nature of the investigation into his grievance – which he argued constituted a breach of agreed procedures.

The respondent submitted that the claim amounts to €6,096 p.a. and if it was upheld would have knock on implications across the wider health sector employments and the public sector.It was submitted that public service agreements provide for public sector workers being reassigned to new locations without the payment of travel and subsistence .It was submitted that the payment of subsistence is designed to cover the cost of extra expenses for meals due to an absence from the normal place of work and the employer contended that  claim did not meet the basic requirements as “ the claim is seeking subsistence for travelling to commence working from a reassigned location”. The respondent accepted that the escalating grievance procedure was not observed by the respondent with respect to the matter of the change of base.

The following submission was presented by SIPTU on behalf of the claimant :

Introduction

1       Adjudication Officer, the case before you today concerns the claims of  Mr.J.McE and Ms.F the ( Complainants) in complaint that their employer  (the Respondent);

a.     Unnecessarily displaced them from their work base in L and then denied them effective access to the protections of the agreed Grievance Procedure in challenging the continuing, disputed displacement,  and,

b.     Refuses payment of any subsistence (or travel) payments claimed by the Complainants through the course of the displacement to the alternative base in S from 11 August 2021 (IR - SC – 00001140 and IR - SC - 00001141), in contravention of the provisions governing such payments in the employment.

2       The Complaints are referred under the Industrial Relations Acts.

Factual Background

3       The Complainants commenced employment with the Respondent in 1981 and 2003 respectively. Both Complainants are employed under contracts of indefinite duration   as Paramedics working from their assigned base in L.

4       In May of 2021 the Respondent submitted proposals – put forward as proposals under the appropriate PSA procedure - to amalgamate the L and S operational base stations into one, to be located in S. SIPTU engaged with the Respondent outlining initial difficulties relating to the insufficient level of detail contained in the draft proposal without which the members would be unable to assess the proposed amalgamation on an informed basis; i.e. activity levels and the types of calls in the L catchment area, etc. No expanded. alternative or updated proposals have been received from the Respondent in this regard from this time.

5       The Respondent issued a letter to the Complainants on 10 August 2021 advising them that, from the following day, they were being ‘relocated’ to the alternative S base, on a temporary basis (‘4 to 6 months’), due to construction and fire-safety work at L Community Hospital. The Respondent further advised that, as S was within 45 km of their L base, ‘subsistence will not be paid.’

6       Further correspondence issued to the Complainants in the following days (August 12 and 20), reiterating that they were being ‘assigned’ or ‘’reassigned’ to the S base from 11 August 2021, and that ‘subsistence or travel will not apply.’

7       The Respondent wrote to the Complainants on 20 August 2021 outlining, among other issues, that ‘as a good will gesture and due to the short notice timeframe, transport will be made available at L Station should you wish to avail of same.’ Both this letter and that of the 12th of August advised the Complainants of their right to raise any issue relating to these arrangements under the Grievance Procedure, should they so decide.  

8       The Complainants subsequently raised grievances with reference to the denial of subsistence, in the first instance. Stage 1 concluded in the Grievances not being upheld.

9       Stage 2 concluded, similarly, in that the Grievances were not upheld by the Respondent. In its findings at Stage 2 the Respondent cites the National Financial Regulations at 5.11.10, and, as management…have provided transport from L Station, leaving you at no financial loss.’

10    By letter dated 4 April 2022 the Respondent advised the Complainants that the use of the car from the L base would be discontinued from 15 May 2022. (Appendix 2, p. 37)

11    The outcome of Stage 3 of the Grievance process issued on 22nd of May 2022. The Respondent did not uphold the grievances, citing NFR-05, 5.11.10, quoting the opening section of that provision, but failing to include the remainder of that provision.

12    Given that the most immediate grievances of the Complainants (treating with their most closely felt disadvantages, financial and travel issues) had not been resolved, and with the ‘temporary’ arrangement now exceeding the initial period indicated, the Complainants raised further, related grievances in respect of the relocation (assignment/reassignment/redeployment), itself. In this the Complainants reiterated some of the grounds raised in the earlier process; i.e.

a.     That there was no necessity to be relocated in the first instance, as the ‘drugs-bag; could be accommodated locally in L and the vehicle charge could be similarly continued on local use

b.     That any other effect of the work at  L  could be accommodated for by staff during the temporary period envisaged .

13    They further pointed out that the now seemingly indefinite relocation to an alternative base was contrary to contractual terms and agreed processes, and imposed costs associated with ‘the disruptive arrangement.’

14    The Respondent’s determination of the grievances at Stage 1 issued on 26th September 2022. The grievances were not upheld and SIPTU referred the matters to Stage 2 of the procedure by email dated 6 October 2022. As the respondent and its staff (at all levels) had come under severest pressure due to the tragic events in North D  on 7 October 2022, SIPTU did not seek any further update in the matter until 3 November.

15    SIPTU continued to try to arrange for the grievances to be heard at Stage 2 but the Respondent never responded thereafter. The interrelated, unresolved grievances were referred to the WRC on 2 March 2023.

Union case – Dispute relating to the protracted displacement from base

16    We submit that the Respondent completely failed in its duty under the agreed Grievance Procedure to afford even the most basic protections of the Complainants in that the right of referral to Stages 2 and 3 of the Procedure have been effectively denied by the Respondent.

17    We submit that the context within which this denial of the protections of the procedure took place is important to bear in mind, in that;

a.     The Complainants had been entering into their second year on what had been indicated to be a ‘4 to 6 month’ displacement from base;

b.     They had been refused access to any subsistence or travel-expense recompense, in the interim (and from the outset), with reference to an application of the NFR which they considered excluded them on a highly selective consideration of those regulations (see below);

c.      Their fundamental assurances as to how the service could be provided from L – without any undue expense or disadvantage to service users – were never given any adequate and objective consideration under the Procedure;

d.     With the accumulation of all the circumstances outlined above, including being effectively barred from Stages 2 and 3 of the Grievance Procedure, the Complainants could not but grow increasingly concerned that the Respondent was really simply trying to give effect to an amalgamation of the L and S bases by means other-than those provided for under the PSA – what had been proposed in May of 2021 was, under a different pretext, effectively implemented in March of 2023 without any further access to local resolution available to the Complainants.

18     We submit that in resolution of the above failures by the Respondent to apply the agreed procedure, that you make such award as you consider appropriate under the circumstance, and that further direction be made for restoration of the Complainants to their L base, with whatever appropriate measures considered objectively necessary with regard to service users’, staff and equipment considerations.

Union case – Dispute relating to Subsistence

19    We submit that the Respondent has erred in its findings that the Complainants are precluded from availing of subsistence (and/or travel) payments under the NFR cited by them.

20    We submit that, whereas the Respondent makes various references to ‘relocation’ or ‘assignment’ or ‘reassignment,’ in their determinations, they otherwise (and arbitrarily) elect to treat the Complainants’ displacement to the S base as a ‘redeployment’ as conceived under the PSA 2013 (Haddingtom Road), this so that it attracts a presumed exemption from the provisions of the NFR. (Appendix 3, p. 38, and Appendix 4, pp. 54 – 66)

21    We submit that such a presumption is incorrect and gives rise to an unwarranted exclusion of the Complainants from the applicable NFR provisions.

22    The Complainants’ displacement from their base – whether for four months, or six months, or an indeterminant period – is not a redeployment such as comes under the PSA; if it were it would have been in continuance of that process started by the Respondent in their draft proposal of May 2021. But the Respondent never proceeded under that process, and has not to date, to SIPTU’s knowledge.

23    5.11.4 of the NFR makes provision that, ‘A day allowance is not payable for any absence at any place within 8 kilometers of the officer’s home or normal place of work of 5 hours or more.’[my emphasis]. The clear implication is that, all other qualifying conditions being met, a day allowance would be payable to staff (other than those ‘redeployed under the terms of the applicable PSA). (Appendix 1, p. 12)

24    We further submit that the arbitrary exclusion from any access to subsistence is evident on a closer reading of the provisions cited by the Respondent in justifying the exclusion. 5.11.10 is cited but the following sentences in which the section concludes are omitted from the passage quoted by the Respondent (Appendix 2, p. 39);

-        In such cases, the payment of a day subsistence allowance will depend upon whether the officer is in fact put to substantial extra expense for meals in consequence of his absence from his normal base. In each case where an allowance is justified, a special rate will be fixed.

25    Notwithstanding narrow consideration of ‘subsistence’ payment only, we submit that the Respondent has a duty to consider all expense – whether in subsistence or travel – incurred in consequence of being assigned away from their normal base. The NFR makes sensible provisions in this regard, establishing that the payments;

a.      Provide only for recoupment of legitimate expense (5.4.1),

b.     Avoid duplication of claims, where possible (5.10.4)

c.      Only for ‘necessary’ absences from base’ (5.11.2)

d.     Providing for the duty of Line Managers to comply with the NFR (5.163) (Appendix 1, pp. 4 – 21)

26    Given that the Complainants have submitted subsistence claims from the outset, and that they are now over two years into the ‘temporary’ arrangement imposed on August 10th 2021, we submit that their legitimate claims be acceded and a recommendation be made to that effect.

Conclusion

27    We submit that the complaints are well founded and respectfully request you find in favour of our members’ claims.

In Sept. 2023 , the union submitted the following supplementary submissions:

 Introduction

1       Adjudication Officer, we submit the following in respect of certain aspects of the Respondent’s submissions, both written and oral submissions at hearing on August 29 last.

2       Though most of the maters raised in the Respondent’s written submissions are addressed in our own submission at hearing, we offer a brief reiteration in some parts below.

The interrelation of the two claims referred – ‘relocation’ and subsistence

3       We submit that it is of central importance that the claims be understood in how they intersect at their essential core; the Complainants assert, primarily, that it is not and was not ever necessary that they be moved from their starting base at the L Community Hospital grounds. (see 1.2 of Respondent’s submission).

4       If prior precedent had been followed the issue of disputed bases from which subsistence would be assessed would simply never have arisen.

5       5.4.1 of the NFR provides that travel and subsistence will be paid only where, ‘The expenses concerned must have been incurred ‘wholly exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties of the employment.’  [my emphasis]. It is the Complainants’ case that were the unnecessary relocation avoided – there being a practical alternative available to the arrangement – then the dispute relating to subsistence would also have been avoided; i.e. the issue only became a necessary component of the working arrangement at the unnecessary, elective insistence of the Repondent. (Appendix 1, p. 4 of our Appendices)

Union case – Dispute relating to the protracted displacement from base

6       We reiterate our prior submissions on this complaint.

7       In relation to the question raised by the Respondent to the effect that a process of Mediation / Conciliation has commenced in which the two Complainants’ positions are comprehended – we have consulted our colleague Representing in collective matters and he has confirmed that no such process is in process, and certainly none such as relates to the two Complainants working in  the L base.

8       There is, therefore, no Mediation or Conciliation process in effect which in any way overlaps or can be said to include consideration of the ‘temporary relocation’ by the respondent  of the two Complainants which is the subject of this enquiry under the Industrial Relations Acts.

9       At hearing the Respondent submitted that the Grievance Procedure expressly provides for an employee skipping a Stage of the procedure and proceeding to the next stage. It does not. While there have been instances in the past where both sides have agreed that a certain case may be best addressed through being progressed to a later stage, that question did not arise in the current cases as the Respondent, at a certain point, simply failed to respond.

10    There have even been situations in the past where, post Stage 3 of the procedure and after the matter remaining at issue had already been referred to a third party, that the parties agreed to re-engage to see if they could resolve the matter (or conclude a Stage of Procedure), prior to it being heard at the third party forum. The Respondent was aware of the referral of the complaints referred but made no attempt to engage with a view to resolve the issues thereafter. We respectfully submit, therefore, that the complaints relating to the denial of the protections of the procedure be upheld.

Union case – Dispute relating to Subsistence

11    We reiterate our prior submissions on this complaint.

12    As the Adjudicator had asked at hearing for an estimation of the claims the Complainants have summarised their calculations in the attached tables.

13    The first table refers to subsistence claims as they would be calculated (for each of the Complainants), were the recommendation to award subsistence for all shifts from 11 August 2021 as starting from L Base , going to S, and returning to L Base, be given effect.

14    The second table refers to subsistence claims as they would be calculated (for each of the Complainants), were the recommendation to award subsistence for relevant shifts from 11 August 2021 as starting from S and returning to S, only, be given effect.

15    These calculations are submitted without prejudice to the previous submissions made in relation to the claims, including reference made in our submissions regarding the application of a ‘special rate’ as provided for under 5.11.10 of the NFR. (Appendix 1, p. 13 of our appendices)

Conclusion

We submit that the complaints are well founded and respectfully request you find in favour of our members’ claims.

L Base – S – L Base

From August 11, 2021

(5hr allowance - €16.29; 10hr allowance - €39.08)

Total in respect of each Complainant’s claim: €11,880.32

S ‘Base’ – S ‘Base’ only

From August 11, 2021

(5hr allowance - €16.29; 10hr allowance - €39.08)

Total in respect of each Complainant’s claim: €5,852.04

At the final hearing of the dispute on the 11th.Feb. 2026 , the union submitted that the following subsistence  payments had been made to the claimants since the previous hearing- at which the parties had agreed that S and Back to S claims could be processed . 

Mr.M €6,362-29 and Ms.F €6,461-66.

It was submitted that if the calculations had been based on L as the base , the claimant’s would still be owed

Mr.M €459-20 and Ms.F 499-67.

The union requested the undersigned to make a recommendation in favour of the L base   as the  appropriate base  for the purpose  of calculation of subsistence.

It was submitted that  while over the last year intermittent payments of subsistence  claims  had been made, the claimants believed a shortfall in subsistence  arose for both claimants.It was advanced that the union’s position remained as always i.e. the claimants were temporarily reassigned to S station and their permanent base was L station.It was submitted that the claimant’s colleague workers who had also been reassigned temporarily were in receipt of full travel and subsistence.

The union reiterated that the respondent’s  failures to observe the grievance procedure with respect to the payment of subsistence and the temporary reassignment to Station S were documented in detail in the foregoing submissions and Appendix3 of the union’s first submission to the WRC .The union submitted the following post hearing submission on the 18th.March.2026

Introduction

1       Adjudication Officer, we submit the following in respect of matter arising from the Hearing on February 11th 2026, as directed by you and in respect of supplementary submissions by the Respondent in the intervening period.

2       Though the matters raised in the Respondent’s written submissions are addressed in our own previous submissions and at hearing, we offer a brief reiteration in some parts below.

The interrelation of the two claims referred – ‘relocation’ and subsistence

3       We submit that it is of central importance that the claims be understood in how they intersect at their essential core; the Complainants assert, primarily, that it is not and was not ever necessary that they be moved from their starting base at the L Community Hospital grounds.

4       If prior precedent had been followed the issue of disputed bases from which subsistence would be assessed would simply never have arisen.

5       Further, as stated at hearing on the 11th of February, if the same provisions extended to other  staffs in the employment of the respondent ) having being re-located (temporarily or otherwise)  was applied to the Complainants, no issue would have arisen. The Respondent chose to treat them differently.

6       5.4.1 of the NFR provides that travel and subsistence will be paid only where, ‘The expenses concerned must have been incurred ‘wholly exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties of the employment.’  [my emphasis]. It is the Complainants’ case that were the unnecessary relocation avoided – there being a practical alternative available to the arrangement – then the dispute relating to subsistence would also have been avoided; i.e. the issue only became a necessary component of the working arrangement at the unnecessary, elective insistence of the Respondent.

Union case – Dispute relating to Subsistence

7       We reiterate our prior submissions on this complaint.

8       As stated at hearing, we confirm that the parties have agreed that payment has been made for the periods up-to 17 February 2025, and the period after, with the exceptions being as follows;

a.      Ms.F - €499.67 unpaid claims prior to 17/02/2025

                                     €404.10 unpaid claims since 17/02/2025

b.      Mr.M -€459.02 unpaid claims prior to 17/02/2025

                                               €554.19 unpaid claims since 17/02/2025

9       We submit that the Respondent has not identified any specific, sufficient ground on which any of the outstanding claims – whether before or after 17/022/2025 – can be held to have been legitimately rejected or denied; citing general rules relating to having ‘passed within 8km of base’ or other rule does not identify the specific basis for the non-payment off the allowance in a given instance, at least not to the extent that the employee can know the specific reason sufficient to challenge it, if incorrect. On this basis we submit that the claims be upheld and recommendation made for their payment.

Grievance Complaints

10    We reiterate our submissions made in this regard at hearing and in our original written submissions, specifically from paragraph 12 through paragraph 18.

11    We refute any submissions on the part of the Respondent which would invoke a ‘hindsight’ justification for their actions in this regard; it is no defence of failing to address the legitimate grievances of employees being ‘temporarily relocated’ to say that what was communicated at that time turned out to be wrong anyway and that some more enduring relocation may be mooted in the future (but hasn’t yet), by the Respondent. That is the ‘we are where we are’ defence and, if accepted, it leaves every employee subject to being denied access to procedures through which they can press for answers to specific concerns, the employer responding on record to the issues raised, informing employees on the matters at issue, even if the answers are not ones that they welcome.

12    We submit that to do otherwise and deny recourse to procedures is to allow for the kind of obfuscation as is evident in the current case, effectively ‘drawing a veil over the eyes’ of employees even as their fundamental terms of employment (place of employment, base and related terms) are subject to unilateral change.

Conclusion

13    We submit that the complaints are well founded and respectfully request you find in favour of our members’ claims.

The union submitted a final chart documenting the chronology of the processing of the grievances lodged with the respondent

 1. Introduction

 1.1 The Complainants  are employed by the respondent  have a dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

 1.2 The dispute relates to the closure of L Community Hospital following an unannounced HIQA inspection and subsequent report of an inspection of a Designated Centre for Older People issued on the 8 th July 2021. The Complainants work from the L  Ambulance Station which is located on the grounds of the hospital.

1.3 The report highlighted serious health, safety and fire risks and all staff and residents were relocated in August 2021.

 2. Background 2.1 The Complainants were informed by telephone conversation on the 5th August 2021 of the closure of the hospital and subsequent letters issued on the 10th and 12th August 2021 confirming the contents of the conversation.

 2.2 The closure of L Community Hospital and grounds were outside of the control of the employer  and all staff and residents were relocated to other  facilities managed by the respondent .

 2.3. The Complainants were reassigned to S Ambulance Station which is 21km from L Community Hospital with effect from the 11th August 2021. This station was the nearest located to L Community Hospital, and was chosen to mitigate disruption to the Complainants. It was envisaged, based on the information provided at the time by the Director of Nursing that the Community Hospital would close for approximately 4-6 months to allow for necessary repairs and construction work to be undertaken.

 2.4. Due to the unforeseen nature of the closure of the community hospital, this became an essential redeployment as set out in the Public Sector Agreement 2010- 2014 (section 6.1.23 pg. 44): “Staff may be redeployed to a location within a 45 km radius of their current work location or of their home address, whichever is the shorter commute. In making such redeployment decisions regard will also be had to reasonable daily commute time.”  S was the nearest ambulance station, 21 km away and was chosen on that basis to minimise disruption.

 2.5. Building Momentum A new public service agreement, 2021-2022, still in existence and further extended to 2023 (Section 1.5.3): delivery of high-quality public services. “Where currently applicable the guideline redeployment distance will continue to be 45km from the current work location or the home address, whichever is the shorter commute. (Appendix 3) However, there will be no redeployment distance applied where an employee is working (and so long as they continue to work) mostly remotely.”

 2.6. Mr.M relocation to S Ambulance Station was 17km from his home address and Ms F  was 20km from her home address, both falling within the 45km rule as specified in long standing Public Sector Agreements since 2010. (Appendix 4) 2.7. As a goodwill gesture and to minimise disruption to the Complainants, correspondence was issued on the 20th August 2021 (Appendix 5) that a respondent vehicle was being provided for use to travel from L Community Hospital to S Ambulance Station for each shift worked. It was clearly outlined that mileage and subsistence would not be paid and that there would be no change to working hours or roster.

 2.8. Normal subsistence entitlements continued when the complainants were away from base on an ambulance call for more than 5 or 10 hours. Expenses must be incurred in the performance of the duties of employment while on official business away from their base which includes responding to emergency and non-life  threatening calls.

 2.9. In November 2021, the Complainants lodged a grievance relating to the nonpayment of a 10 hour subsistence for each day worked in S Ambulance Station. The grievance was not upheld as a claim for a daily 10 hour subsistence payment did not meet National Financial Regulations. (Appendix 6)

3. Management Position

3.1. National Financial Regulations NFR B4 – Travel and Subsistence 2.9.2 clearly states “Not Applicable to temporarily transferred employees who are able to travel daily between homes and their temporary office or place of work.”

 3.2. The rule as outlined above dates back to Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER) Circular 11/82: “The ordinary rate of day allowance is not applicable to temporarily transferred officers who are able to travel daily between their homes and the office to which they are temporarily attached, or in other cases of repeated daily visits to the same place. In such cases, the payment of a day subsistence allowance will depend upon whether the officer is in fact put to substantial extra expense for meals in consequence of his absence from his normal headquarters. (Appendix 7) It further notes that time spent on journeys from home to headquarters or vice versa will not reckon towards the qualifying period of 5 hours.

 3.2. The respondent does  not have the authority to approve expenses that directly contravene the respondent’s  National Financial Regulations and DPER Circulars and an important point to note in this case is that the Complainants did not incur additional expenses due to their relocation, some 21km to S.

 3.3. As a good will gesture, one of the respondent’s vehicles   was provided to the complainants for use to travel to their reassigned base, for which they availed of.

3.4. On the 31st March 2022, almost 8 months following the closure of L Community Hospital,  Management wrote to the Complainants, giving six weeks notice that that from the 15th May they would have  available to them  of one of the respondent’s  cars   to use to travel to  S Ambulance Station would cease. The rationale for this decision was twofold, firstly  Estates who were responsible for the building and essential repairs, informed all relevant services that there was no estimated completion date for the works and secondly that the vehicle was required for use in the delivery of frontline patient care. It was also confirmed that based on the information from  Estates, that S Ambulance Stations should now be considered their base until works were completed and a safe return to LCommunity Hospital.

 3.5. Further correspondence was issued on the 22nd April 2022, outlining that the respondent  were not responsible for providing transport to staff to travel to and from work. The initial availability of a vehicle for  the Complainants was provided as a good will gesture given the speed in which L Community Hospital was closed.

 3.6 The Complainants commenced the grievance procedure seeking the payment of 10 hours subsistence for the duration of their reassignment to S Ambulance Station. The grievance were not upheld given the reasons outlined in the NFR’s and DPER Circular.

 4. Conclusion

4.1. The closure of L Community Hospital affected all staff working in various roles and grades in that location which included doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants and many others who were providing community supports and the residents. Staff affected were relocated across a number of  the respondent’s sites  and were not provided with transportation or paid subsistence.

 4.2. This claim is seeking payment by way of 10 hours subsistence (€39.08) for each shift worked which amounts to approximately 156 shifts per annum resulting in an annual claim of €6,096. 4.3. If this claim is upheld, it will have a knock on effect on the wider  workforce within the employment as well as the wider  public sector whom under the Public Sector Agreements can be redeployed/reassigned to  a new location within 45km without the payment of travel and subsistence.

4.4. To uphold this complaint and award a daily subsistence for attending work in a reassigned location, will set a precedent within the employment  thus potentially leading to claims from others who have been reassigned or located under Public Sector Agreements since 2010.

 4.5. The payment of subsistence is designed to cover the cost of extra expenses for meals due to an absence away from normal place of work. This claim does not meet the basic requirements as the claim is seeking subsistence for traveling to commence working from a reassigned location. As a good will gesture, an employer vehicle was provided for the complainants to use to travel to S up until 14th May 2022, however this gesture was not sustainable  in the long term.

On the 25th.Sept. 2023 , the respondent submitted the following supplementary submission :

1. Introduction

1.1 We submit a supplementary submission in response to the Complainants written and oral submissions following an in person hearing on the 29th August 2023.

 2. Summary

 · Closure of L Community Hospital

 2.1 The Complainants have presented a case that they should have been allowed to remain working from  L Community Hospital, although it has been clearly presented that due to a HIQA inspection, the buildings were deemed unsafe and all staff and residents were relocated to other  facilities managed by the respondent .

 2.2. The attached HIQA report, (Appendix 1), resulting in the closure of the Community Hospital, provides a detailed insight into the lack of compliance with regards to the premises and fire precautions.

 · Subsistence Claims

 2.3. Due to the unforeseen nature of the closure of the community hospital, S was the nearest ambulance station, 21 km away and was chosen on that basis to minimise disruption. It is the respondent’s ’s position that the complainants do not qualify for subsistence as expenses must be incurred in the performance of the duties of employment while on official business away from their base which includes responding to emergency and non-life threatening calls.

2.4. The respondent  does not have the authority to deviate or disregard the National Financial Regulations (NFR) B4 – Travel and Subsistence 2.9.2 clearly states “Not Applicable to temporarily transferred employees who are able to travel daily between homes and their temporary office or place of work.” The rule as outlined above dates back to Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER) Circular 11/82: “The ordinary rate of day allowance is not applicable to temporarily transferred officers who are able to travel daily between their homes 3 and the office to which they are temporarily attached, or in other cases of repeated daily visits to the same place. In such cases, the payment of a day subsistence allowance will depend upon whether the officer is in fact put to substantial extra expense for meals in consequence of his absence from his/her normal headquarters. It further notes that time spent on journeys from home to headquarters or vice versa will not reckon towards the qualifying period of 5 hours.

 2.5. The complainants were not placed into a situation whereby working from S Ambulance Station, some 21km away, placed an additional financial burden upon them for meals. The complainants collected  an employer vehicle (which includes the respondent’s  fuel card) from L Community Hospital at the commencement of their shift start time, travelled during their working hours and returned the vehicle once their shift had finished. Therefore, awarding a claim for subsistence that contravenes DPER/NFR’s, could be seen as attempting to profit from the closure of the hospital, as the complainants did not incur any additional expense and remained entitled to claim subsistence in the normal way, when away from the new base attending emergency calls for a period of 5 or 10 hours as per NFR’s.

 2.6. It is the respondent’s ’s position that a claim for financial compensation by way of subsistence should be disregarded as the respondent  provided a vehicle for use to travel from L Community Hospital to  Ambulance Station for each shift worked. The use of this vehicle was accepted by the complainants and normal subsistence rules applied whilst they were on duty responding to calls.

2.7. It is important to note that no other employee impacted by the closure of L Community Hospital received a  vehicle to use to travel to and from work. Therefore, it could be argued that the complainants received preferential benefits by virtue of the fact that they work in this section of the employment , an operational function of the respondent and management took the decision to allocate a vehicle to the complainants to mitigate any costs they would incur by travelling the additional distance to their new base.

 2.8. With respect to the calculations contained in the Complainants supplementary submission, we have a number of observations.

 · The calculation does not specify precise dates of each subsistence claim as required under NFR-B4

 · The rates used in the calculation for August, September, October, November 2021 are incorrect and are of a higher rate than approved by Department of Health. (Appendix 2)

· The complainants work 13 shifts per month as per approved national rosters, minus annual leave and public holiday leave = rostered to work 135 shifts per annum

 · Between 11th August 2021 to date, both complainants have taken various forms of leave – Mr M54 days & Ms F 65 days and this has not been factored into the claims

 · The claim presented for €11,880.32 is not based upon actual shifts worked nor reflects statutory leave or sick leave taken whereby the complainants were not at work. The claim is for 304,10-hours subsistence payments, although the complainants would have been expected to work 270 shifts from 11th August 2021 up to 31st August 2023

 · The claim presented for €5,852, is seeking a variation of 5 and 10 hour subsistence payments from S to S contradicting the nature of the dispute, which is essentially the pursuit of a 10 hours subsistence payment from the former station L to S and does not explain the variation

· The calculations are not a true and accurate reflection of rostered shifts and appear to be over inflated and not based on any evidence.

· Conciliation Process

2.9. Correspondence from Ms F , Head of Service HR and Mr KL, Deputy Director HR, confirms conciliation has commenced and that discussions in relation to travel and subsistence payments for L staff should conclude by the 1 st January 2024. (Appendix 3)

2.10. SIPTU have not informed the respondent  if they have or have not included the Complainants as part of the claim for L  Staff, affected by the closure of the hospital.

 · Grievance 2.11.

 Two grievance processes were instigated by the complainants which overlap somewhat as they relate to the reassignment to S  Station and the payment of subsistence. The first grievance was heard in November 2021 and concluded in May 2022. The second grievance was heard at stage one on the 26th September 2022.

 2.12. The first grievance outcome correspondence 20th May 2022, addressed the issue of payment of subsistence and the rationale for the station reassignment and clearly explained why the complainants were moved.

 2.13. The second grievance was not upheld at stage one of the process (26th September 2022) as the complainants were seeking relocation back to L Community Hospital, which remained closed. The reason for the reassignment to S in the first instance was due to the closure of the hospital and as such, remains closed to this day. The elements of the second grievance submitted in September 2022, had already been dealt with and explained in the stage 3 outcome letter of the 20th May 2022.

2.14. Whilst the  respondent acknowledges that it did not conclude the second grievance process, the status quo remained the same with regard to the closure of L Community Hospital and the complainants were fully aware that returning to their former location was not an option. It is the respondent’s view that that this is disingenuous, as the grievance process should be entered into by both parties in good faith, in an effort to resolve the dispute at local level in the first instance. The complainants were provided with numerous correspondence as to the reason why they were reassigned, accepted the respondent’s vehicle to use and were aware that the respondent  could not possibly return them to a location that is closed as it is unsafe, nor uphold their grievance. In summary, even if the process had concluded, the outcome would have been the same.

2.15. The respondent does not have the authority to approve expenses that directly  contravene the respondent’s  National Financial Regulations and DPER Circulars. An important point to note in this case is that the Complainants did not incur additional expenses due to their relocation, some 21km to S.

2.16. The payment of subsistence is designed to cover the cost of extra expenses for meals due to an absence away from normal place of work. This claim does not meet the basic requirements as the claim is seeking subsistence for traveling to commence working from a reassigned location.

 · Appendix 1 – HIQA Report

· Appendix 2 – Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Standard Subsistence Rates 1st July 2019 & 1st December 2021

· Appendix 3 – Email Correspondence 12th September 2023 – Ms M F.

At the final hearing on the matter on the 11th.Feb. 2026 , the respondent’s representative asserted that the payments made to the claimants were based on actual days worked and that in addition to the figures presented by the union , the claimants were paid €1,060-76.She said the respondent would consider any calculations that union wished to present with respect to the alleged shortfalls in subsistence payments .The union undertook to make the submissions within 2 weeks and the respondent indicated they would respond to the submissions within a further 2 weeks.The respondent suggested that problems maybe arising because the claimants had not registered on the new self service  IT system(Misrip)  for travel and subsistence payments.

The respondent’s representative stated that they acknowledge that there were procedural deficits with respect to the processing of the claimants’  second  grievance   and accepted  that the respondent had not observed  Stage 2/Stage 3 steps .The respondent did submit that as far as the respondent was concerned  that the overall substantive matter had been addressed in the outcome of the Stage 3 process which addressed the first grievance of the 6th.October 2021.The   union undertook to furnish the respondent  with previous submissions on the matter and the respondent’s representative indicated that they would respond to same  within 2 weeks .The representative stated that the respondent had facilitated the claimants with one of their car fleet to minimise the costs of travelling from L to station S .She said the respondent did not and would not pay someone to travel to work .The union referred to the staff outside of the Paramedic service who had been based at Site L  and who  had been paid full travel  and subsistence expenses when they were reassigned to Station S.

The following post hearing submission was received from the respondent on the 23rd.Feb. 2026 :

1.      Introduction

This supplementary submission is provided to assist the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) by clarifying the factual background, responding to points raised by the Complainants Mr M  and  Ms.G  on the 11th February 2026.

1.      Closure of L Community Hospital and Operational Impact

Following a HIQA inspection, L Community Hospital was deemed unsafe and non‑compliant, particularly in relation to the premises and fire‑safety systems. The attached HIQA report provides detailed findings, including substantial deficiencies in fire precautions. The closure of the hospital was both unforeseen and mandatory, resulting in the immediate relocation of all staff and residents to alternative  facilities managed by the respondent . The respondent  had no discretion in this regard.

1.      Rationale for Reassignment to S Ambulance Station

Upon closure of L Community Hospital, S Ambulance Station, approximately 21 km away, was identified as the nearest operational base for the reassignment of the complainants. This decision was made solely to maintain service continuity and to minimise disruption to emergency response capability within the catchment area.

The Complainants collected the emergency vehicle from L at the start of each shift (using the employer’s fuel card) and travelled to S  within their rostered working time. They returned the vehicle to L at shift end. At no time were the Complainants required to travel in their personal vehicles or incur personal travel costs.

1.      Subsistence Entitlement

The respondent maintains that the Complainants did not satisfy the criteria for subsistence payments in relation to the temporary reassignment. Under DPER/National Financial Regulations (NFRs), subsistence may only be claimed where the employee incurs actual expenses in the performance of official duties and is engaged in work away from their designated base for qualifying periods (5 or 10 hours).

In this case the complainants incurred no additional cost arising from the reassignment. Travel between L  and S occurred during paid working hours and using a respondent’s vehicle with fuel provided. The Complainants continued to have full entitlement to claim subsistence in the normal manner, i.e., when rostered away from their normal place of work on emergency or non‑emergency calls. To award subsistence in these circumstances where no loss or expense was incurred would contravene DPER/NFR rules and would amount to an unwarranted financial gain rather than reimbursement.

1.      Grievance Processes Undertaken

First Grievance (Stage 1 November 2021 & Stage 3 May 2022)

•                 The first grievance dealt directly with: the rationale for reassignment, and the Complainants’ subsistence claims.

•                 The outcome letter of 20 May 2022 fully addressed these matters and confirmed that the hospital closure necessitated the reassignment, and

•                 Subsistence could not be paid for circumstances that did not meet DPER/NFR criteria.

3

Second Grievance (Stage 1 – 26 September 2022)

•                 The second grievance was not upheld at Stage 1 as the Complainants sought relocation back to L Community Hospital, an impossibility due to the continued closure of the facility.

•                 The issues raised in the second grievance had already been fully addressed in the Stage 3 outcome letter of 20 May 2022.

Non‑conclusion of Second Grievance

The respondent  acknowledges that the Stage 2/3 steps of the second grievance were not completed. However:

•                 The hospital remained closed throughout,

•                 The Complainants knew a return was not feasible,

•                 The substantive issues had already been dealt with in the earlier process, and the outcome could not have differed, even if the process had been completed

Pursuing a grievance with an outcome that could not possibly be achieved i.e., relocating staff to a closed, unsafe building does not, in the respondent’s view, reflect engagement in good faith as intended under the Grievance Procedure.

6. Subsistence Payments Made August 2021-November 2024

The subsistence payments made to the claimants are consistent with NFR requirements .No entitlement exists outside these established rules.Any subsistence claims after this date must be processed through NiSRP and approved by the line manager.

Conclusion :The respondent  always acted in accordance with statutory safety requirements arising from the HIQA inspection , operational necessity to maintain emergency services, DEPR/NFR provisions governing subsistence payments and established grievance procedures.

The complainants reassignment was required , their subsistence claims were appropriately assessed and paid as evidenced and the grievance processes were substantively addressed , even if procedural completion of the second grievance was not finalised .The respondent respectfully submits that the claims made to the WRC should be dismissed.

The following further clarification was received from the respondent on the 4th.March 2026:

“Thank you for your email.  I have included a table which I hope provides clarity on the claim period in question, and the number of individual sub claims rejected as the crew remained within 8km of their base.

All claims including those that are approved/not approved state ”S” as location and “Out of Base” given for reason for trip claim. NiSRP seeks information on your starting & end location which for our crews, will be always be the same location as they return to base following a call.” 

In a final submission dated the 31st.March , the respondent invoked the provisions of  of the Labour Court in  LCR 22979 specifically with respect to the 8km distance rule which was previously referred to by the parties in their various submissions to the WRC.

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

Ultimately , the 2 matters remaining in dispute between the parties are            

                    Subsistence Payments  set out below

                      Ms.F - €499.67 unpaid claims prior to 17/02/2025

                                     €404.10 unpaid claims since 17/02/2025

         Mr.M -€459.02 unpaid claims prior to 17/02/2025

                                               €554.19 unpaid claims since 17/02/2025

I have considered the entirety of the submissions  of the parties in relation to this matter and accept the respondents assertion that they are required to comply with the respondents Financial Regulations.The respondent has emphasised that they do not have the authority to approve expenses that contravene the Regulations.I also accept the relevance of the Labour  Court Decision quoted above in relation to the matter of the 8km rule.

I  accept the union’s contention that the wording of the  Regulations are open to interpretation  for example references to “special rates “ and substantial additional expense” in par 5.11.10 . While the respondent has argued that they do not have authority to approve expenses that contravene their regulations , the union has persistently asserted that all SIPTU grades that were involved in the same relocation as the claimants  have been paid subsistence  on the basis of  the L to S to L calculation – which has been denied to the claimants.This inconsistency if verified supports the allegation of unfair treatment of the claimants.

               Recommendation

In all of the circumstances , I am recommending in full and final settlement of this element of this dispute  that the subsistence rate ( be it a standard rate , a special rate , a hybrid rate or a subsidised rate )  that has been  applied to the claimants colleagues be applied to the claimants in respect of the periods set out above for unpaid claims  prior to 17/02/2025 and post the 17/02/2025 – as set out in the forgoing   paragraph. This recommendation is issued in response to the unique circumstances applying to this dispute and should not be invoked or relied upon at any other forum.

Grievance Procedure

There is no dispute between the parties in relation to the matter of the grievance procedure being breached by curtailing the escalating 3 stage process – with respect to the second grievance..No compelling  explanation has been advanced for this with the respondent submitting that even if the process had been concluded , the outcome would have been the same.This fails to recognise the imperative of complying with agreed procedures and the principles set out in SI146/2000 which provide for fair procedures and natural justice.

Such procedures serve a dual purpose in that they provide a framework which enables management to maintain satisfactory standards and  enables employees to have access to  fair procedures.In this employment,  the procedure was collectively agreed with the trade union that represented employees and  the procedure does not provide for digressions that enable one party to skip a stage/stages  in the process.Also of note is the fact that the employer was on notice that the disputes had been referred to the WRC but no contact was made with the union side to engage in direct discussions with a view to resolving the disputes  at local level.

Recommendation

I recommend in full and final settlement of this element of the dispute that the respondent pay each claimant a compensatory sum of €1,200 for breaching the mutually agreed grievance procedure.