A hospital chaplain who found out he was meant to be paid double time for working Sunday shifts after nearly a quarter of a century walking the wards has been awarded €2,600 in compensation for a breach of his employment rights.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has found St Vincent's University Hospital (SVUH) in Dublin to be in breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 in its failure to pay a Sunday premium to Reverend Liam Cuffe, who has been chaplain to the hospital since 1999.
The Fórsa trade union, appearing for Fr Cuffe, told the tribunal its client earned €5,431 a month in the post, which involved giving end-of-life spiritual support to patients, among other duties.
Although the contract of employment required the chaplain to work weekends, it was "silent in relation to the provision for Sunday premium", the trade union submitted.
The Fórsa rep pointed to a HSE guidance document on terms and conditions of employment in the health service which addressed Sunday work which stated: An employee who works a 5 over 7 roster and is scheduled to work on Sunday is entitled to single time extra for each hour worked."
Fr Cuffe wrote to the hospital management in June 2022 looking for clarification on various allowances, including Sunday premium pay.
His Fórsa rep said there had been a "lengthy engagement process" culminating in his client being told it had been "decided" after correspondence with the HSE that chaplains would "get single time extra", or double time, for Sundays, starting on 6 November 2023.
The hospital’s position was that the Sunday premium had been paid to the complainant since that date in "good faith" and there was "no pre-existing contractual entitlement" to it.
The extra pay had been provided for out of the hospital’s own funds rather than the HSE funding which usually covered payroll, an Ibec rep appearing for the hospital submitted.
A HSE circular addressing the provision of a chaplaincy service stated that it "shall include nights and weekends" and stated that "overtime is not payable", it was submitted. The language of the circular was "mirrored" in contracts signed by Fr Cuffe in 2001 and 2006, it was further submitted.
The Ibec rep argued that the clause "naturally included Sundays" and that a premium had been "incorporated into his contractual salary".
It was submitted that Fr Cuffe "has been correctly paid throughout his employment, in line with his contract, national agreements and HSE pay scales".
A deputy HR director for the hospital said in evidence that the HSE guidance on a Sunday premium "had never been provided" prior to 21 October 2024. She said she "acted in good faith" and decided to apply a Sunday premium at double time from 6 November 2023 onward. She said there was "no funding" for back payments prior to that date.
Adjudicator Aideen Collard wrote that it was "incumbent" on the employer to make sure the chaplain was paid according to his contractual and statutory entitlements, but that it had been "guided by the HSE" in this regard.
She wrote that as the hospital started paying the Sunday premium after receiving guidance that a premium "may fall to be paid" she could not accept the contention that it had been a "good faith" payment and did not "constitute acknowledgement of a pre-existing contractual entitlement".
She also found that the email confirming to Fr Cuffe that he would be getting double time from 6 November onward was "unequivocal" as a matter of contract.
"Further consideration of the wording of the contracts is therefore unnecessary. It follows that the respondent was in contravention of Section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997," Ms Collard wrote.
She directed St Vincent’s University Hospital to pay Fr Cuffe €2,627 for the breach.
Ms Collard wrote that she considered it "just and equitable" to limit the compensation to the priest’s economic loss in the six months up to 6 November 2023, when he lodged his statutory complaint.
This was because there had been a "lack of legal certainty" about the contractual provision for Sunday premium, because the issue was not raised with the employer earlier than 2022, and because payments began as soon as the entitlement was confirmed, she wrote.