FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE WEST - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY PATRICIA MCCALLUM, B.L., INSTRUCTED BY CANNY CORBETT SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-140771-ir-13/SR.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Employer's decision to reassign the Worker to a different position. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 8th September, 2014 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I do not see merit in the claim that the [Worker] be reinstated in the role ... [and] I consider it reasonable that he should continue to be paid travel expenses."
On the 14th October, 2014 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's 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 25th March, 2015.
3. 1.The Worker was appointed as co-ordinator of Critical Incident Response in 2001.
2.The Worker was gradually managed out of this position since 2007, culminating in his redeployment as bereavement counsellor in 2013.
3.The Worker is seeking reinstatement as co-ordinator and the payment of travel expenses in accordance with HSE policy.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Worker’s relationship with his colleagues deteriorated to the point that it was adversely affecting their important work.
2.The Employer’s decision to reassign the Worker was made following numerous meetings and much correspondence.
3.The Worker was reassigned to a position that was grade, salary and work specific to him.
DECISION:
In essence the Court is being invited in this case to recommend the range of duties that ought to be assigned to the Claimant by his employer. While it is clear that the Claimant has bona fide views on how his particular skills ought to be deployed, the prerogative to assign work, within an employee’s terms and conditions of employment, rests with the employer. Except where there is manifest unfairness in the manner in which the employer exercises its prerogative, the Court cannot substitute its opinion on what is appropriate for that of the employer.
In this case the HSE has decided to utilise the Claimant skills in a manner that it considered appropriate having regard to the prevailing circumstances. The decision of the HSE did not contravene any provision of the Claimant contract of employment nor did it contravene any collective agreement by which the Claimant is encompassed.
It is noted that the Rights Commissioner recommended that the Claimant receive travel expenses as they applied previously. The Claimant’s position on that point is that expenses ought to be paid in accordance with established regulations. The Court agrees with the Claimant on that point and it amends the Rights Commissioner recommendation accordingly. In these circumstances, and with the modification just mentioned, the Court cannot see any basis upon which it could interfere with the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th March, 2015______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.