ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000473

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/02/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and the Parental Leave Act, 1998 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s). 

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Respondent emphasised that they had made every effort to facilitate the Complainant.

The decision to initially formally refuse the application on Monday 5^th October 2015 was due to inflexibility in the People Point system – there was no IT solution to indicate that an Application was effectively a tentative "Yes but on hold" pending the sourcing of a suitable replacement. The Officer concerned was effectively compelled on the system to answer either a straight Yes or No.

They were very short of suitable qualified personnel to fill the Complainant’s position in a facility that required the Staff member to have under gone specialist Audit training to satisfy expert requirements especially to the United States.

Strenuous efforts were made to secure a qualified candidate through the Public Appointments processes. Procedural routines in the People Point system had proved to be slow and inflexible in this case.

Eventually a candidate was secured and the Parental leave as requested was granted on the 31sst December 2015 to commence on the 6th January 2016.

The representatives of the Department present at the hearing expressed their regret but throughout the process their hands were largely tied by internal recruitment regulations as and processes.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Issues for Decision:

The initial complaint referred was for the granting of Parental leave under terms of the Act. This has been complied with and this aspect of the Complaint must fall.

However in the granting of this leave did the behaviours of the Respondent throughout the process cause unnecessary upset and distress to the Complainant? This aspect was strongly advanced by the Complainant during the hearing and was not contested as inappropriate by the Respondents representatives

Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:

Parental Leave Act, 1998 Section 21and Section 41 or 44 of Workplace Relations Act 2015.

1. section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a dispute between an employee and his or her employer relating to the entitlements of the employee under this Act (or any matter arising out of or related to those entitlements or otherwise arising under this Act) or a decision of the Labour Court under section 44 of the said Workplace Relations Act 2015 on appeal from the first-mentioned decision, may contain such directions to the parties concerned as the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers necessary or expedient for the resolution of the dispute or matter and such other redress as the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers appropriate having regard to all of the circumstances and the provisions of this Act, and accordingly may specify—

(a) the grant to the employee of parental leave of such length to be taken at such time or times and in such manner as may be so specified,

(b) an award of compensation in favour of the employee concerned to be paid by the employer concerned, or

(c) both a grant referred to in paragraph (a) and an award referred to in paragraph (b)”

Reasons for decision:

Section 21 (b) referred to above allows an Adjudication officer make an award in favour of the employee concerned.

Having heard all the oral evidence from both sides and read the supporting written material supplied at the hearing I find the complaint is well founded.

The application was lodged on the 28^th August 2015 – was initially refused on the 5^th October and eventually granted on the 31 December 2015.

Oral evidence from both sides indicated that formal communications and consultations with the Complainant were poor or almost non existent during this entire prolonged process. However it appeared that a high degree of “Grapevine” communication seemed to have existed.

Evidence presented of accommodation issues, house rentals difficulties etc. showed that considerable distress was caused to the Complainant due to the uncertainty of the processes /progress of the application and the effective absence of clear formal communications.

Final Decision

• I recommend that the Respondent Department immediately review their internal Recruitment communication and selection processes particularly the flexibility of their IT based systems as used in this case.
• I make an award of € 6,800 (approximately one month’s pay) in compensation for the distress caused to the Complainant during this process.

Dated:   30/3/2016