FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : RTE (DTTN) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Constructive dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who was employed by DTTN( a wholly owned subsidiary company of RTE) from May, 2001 to December, 2002. Her role was that of a business development assistant in the Business Development Unit (BDU). The worker claimed that, with effect from September, 2002, her role as a business development assistant was changed without consultation or agreement to that of accounts receivable clerk in the Finance section. The worker claimed that as a result her duties and responsibilities were significantly reduced, forcing her to resign from the employment. Management rejected the claim. The worker sought to refer the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation but the Company objected to such a referral. On the 8th August, 2003 the Union referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 6th November, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In early 2002 the claimant noticed that the Company was attempting to undermine her position in the department and take away a number of functions which she had been allocated and was replacing them with mainly an invoicing role. She brought her concerns to Management that her role and responsibilities in the Company were being diminished. Over the next number of months the claimant continued to express her concerns to Management concerning the downgrading of her post within the organisation.
2. The claimant's employment situation continued to deteriorate and the Company continued to downgrade her original functions and on an ever increasing scale, replacing them with accounts clerk functions. In September, 2002 the Company, without consultation or agreement, transferred the claimant from BDU to the Finance section. At a subsequent meeting with the Union, Management did not attempt to address the claimant's concerns regarding the transfer, or her suggestions as to how the invoicing problem might be resolved, other than to insist on its right to transfer the worker.
3. The claimant is a highly motivated conscientious employee used to working on her own initiative and as part of a team. She saw the BDU post as a way of progressing her career. Had it been explained to her at time of interview process that this job was an account's clerk position she would not, under any circumstances, have taken up the position. The claimant did carry out some invoicing duties because she was requested to do so by Management but at no time did she see the invoicing function as her primary purpose in the Company.
4. The claimant saw the Company's proposals to downgrade her as a regressive and retrograde step and, therefore, she felt that she had no alternative but to resign. She seeks appropriate redress for the trauma and upset which she has suffered.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The BDU was a new function within the Company at the time of the claimant's appointment. Over the next fifteen months the invoicing function became fully embedded in the BDU and formed a significant part of the claimant's duties.The decision to transfer the invoicing and related activities from BDU to Finance was made in the best interests of the business. A large portion of the claimant's duties remained with her. Her transfer involved a change of line manager (which the company reserves the right to do, and is clearly outlined in contracts of employment) and office, but little in the way of a change of duties. The Company did not change her role to that of 'an accounts receivable clerk'. It did not change her title, salary or other terms of employment.
2. The invoicing function was crucial at the time and the claimant was the key operational person in the area. It did not make sense to recruit an additional worker into Finance section leaving the claimant under-utilised in BDU.
3. While the Company acknowledges that the claimant was not pleased with the change in reporting relationship and change in section, it was felt that with a qualification in business and finance, a stint in a Finance department would widen her field of experience and could only have enhanced her career prospects in the long term.
4. The claimant voluntarily resigned from the Company in December, 2002. The Company wished that she would continue her important work in the Finance section. Management did nothing that could be construed as a dismissal of the claimant, constructive or otherwise.
5. The terms of the PPF applied to staff in RTE and its subsidiaries and took account of changes such as this. Staff in many sections in RTE and its subsidiary companies have moved office or section without compensation or claim.
6. To concede any payment for such a move could have serious repercussions throughout RTE.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given serious consideration to the submissions of both sides. Having investigated the facts the Court is satisfied that the claimant had no alternative but to transfer from the Business Development Unit to the Finance Department to a position where the work involved was of less value than that held previously. This transfer was imposed upon her without consultation and was complied with under protest.
The Court is also satisfied that the claimant made it clear that the loss of the Business Development Unit duties associated with the transfer was unacceptable to her and she made every effort to air her grievance but without satisfaction. The Court is of the view that the employer, faced with a need to address invoicing difficulties, classified her at a junior level due to her invoicing abilities without appreciating the impact on her of the loss of her other duties. This action culminated in a situation where she had no alternative but to resign.
The Court recommends concession of the claim and, in all the circumstances of this case, recommends that the employer pay compensation of €10,000 in full and final settlement of all claims against the company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th November, 2003______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.