AD1179

On the 17th June 2010 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th September, 2011.

WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Claimant on her appointment was informed verbally that she should report directly to the Assistant City Manager and had done so for nine years.

2. The autonomy and independence of the position would be removed and subordinated to another branch of the City Council that is in direct competition with the Museum for scarce Council funding.

3. The Council failed to adhere to its own written grievance procedures when it referred the complaint to an inappropriate Department within the Council.



COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Claimant was appointed to the position of Museum Curator and the Particulars of Office state "the post holder shall perform his/her duties under the supervision of the City Librarian"The current situation is that the Claimant is reporting to no-one on a day-to-day basis and this cannot be allowed to continue.

2.It is the prerogative of the Director of Services to manage staff in the manner deemed most appropriate for the effective delivery of service.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by the Employee of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation. The matter before the Rights Commissioner concerned the Claimant’s claim that the City Council failed to consult with her prior to changing her reporting relationship and its failure to adhere to its Grievance procedure. The Rights Commissioner noted that the City Council gave a commitment to the effect that there would be no material effect on the Claimant’s role by the change in reporting arrangements. The Rights Commissioner found that the Claimant had not submitted sufficient arguments as to why she should not cooperate with the new reporting mechanism and accordingly he recommended that she should immediately report to the City Librarian as sought by the City Council. Secondly, the Rights Commissioner found that the City Council had not adhered to its Grievance procedure and recommended that in future the City Council should either amend its procedure to reflect what will happen when a grievance is raised at management level or implement the policy as written.

At the hearing of the appeal the Claimant submitted that the purported change in reporting structures resulted in the removal of significant amounts of responsibility from her role and served to undermine her ability to carry out her duties effectively.

The Claimant submitted that the City Manager refused to deal with her grievance on the matter and instead referred it to the Human Resources Department. She maintained that the City Council’s insistence on her attending a Medical Referee was a tool to coerce, intimidate and harass her into accepting the proposed reporting arrangements in a way that was inimical to her health and well-being. This, she maintained, undermined her dignity at work and her authority in the role as Curator of the Museum.

The City Council submitted that the change in reporting relationship in respect of the Claimant was in keeping with the modernisation agenda advocated byBetter Local Government Agreement 2001(BLG) agreed between the Local Authority Services and Public Sector Trade Unions. A key element of this agreement was the implementation of a totally revamped management structure and cross-disciplinary reporting throughout the Local Authority Services.

Having given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions of both sides the Court notes the strong written assurances given by the City Council in a letter dated 26th May 2009 to the Claimant’s legal advisors that the only change which had taken place as a result of the new reporting structure was that the Museum Curator would now report through the City Librarian instead of her previous reporting relationship. In the letter the City Council assured the Claimant that the Museum remained an independent unit within the Council and made it clear that it would not be part of the Council’s Library structure. It clearly stated that there was no question of subordinating the running of the Museum to Library Management and recognised the discrete agenda of each independent unit. Furthermore, in the letter the City Council made it very clear that there was no issue with the Claimant’s capacity to carry out her duties as Curator of the Museum. Indeed, the Court notes that the Director of Services in her email to the Claimant dated 6th June 2008 advising her of the change in reporting structure commented on the great work that the Claimant was doing.

The Court is satisfied that the City Council had a right to restructure the reporting mechanism in place in accordance with BLG. Furthermore, the Court fully accepts that the Claimant, as Curator, has responsibility for the day-to-day management and running of the Museum.

In all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the Claimant should accept the reporting relationship as advised to her by the Director of Services in 2008. Furthermore, the Court recommends that in the event of conflicting interests emerging between the Museum and the Library then such issues should be addressed by the Director of Services.

Accordingly, the Court concurs with the findings and recommendation of the Right’s Commissioner and upholds his Decision with the above variation.

The Court so decides.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
27th September, 2011______________________
JFDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.