ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001978

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/09/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 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).

Background

The case before the hearing relates to the appeal by the claimant against the decision to remove her from her role, the implications this has had in relation to her future employment with the organisation.

In May 2014 the claimant completed her Fitness and Probity Form within the respondent as is required annually by all employees in the sector. At the time there were some issues in relation to her partner’s business. The claimant cooperated fully with the respondent on these matters. On the 14th January 2015, the claimant was told by her Manager that she was been removed from her current role and that she would start in a new role on the following Monday at a different location. It was submitted that claimant was to make arrangements for her colleagues to have her work transferred to them to be completed.

The respondent confirmed the claimant's employment status in her new role by letter dated the 24th February. Following lengthy discussions and emails, the respondent heard the claimant’s appeal against her transfer which took place on the 22nd May 2015. While it was recommended that her case should be reviewed , nevertheless the core element of her appeal was not upheld.

The Union submitted that prior to the meeting the 14th January the claimant was never informed of the agenda for the meeting or indeed the implications of same. The claimant was never afforded or even offered the opportunity to be represented at this meeting. She was never given the opportunity to appeal this decision and this was confirmed in a letter of the 24th February. The union submitted that the respondent’s fitness and probity was flawed. The Union submitted additional arguments to support their case.

A             that the decision to remove the claimant is unfair and should be overturned

B             She should be returned to her former role

C             She should be compensated for anxiety and stress suffered for the reputational damage suffered.

The respondent submitted that no disciplinary action was ever issued to the claimant, nor are there any plans to do so. The respondent is entitled to move the claimant in line with her contract of employment. The respondent has not breached any processes or procedures in moving the claimant from one location to another within reason.

The respondent is legally obliged to meet the requirements of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010 and ensure that individuals in controlled roles meet the Fitness & Probity Standards. The respondent has apologised to her for the way in which her case was communicated to her at times and the circumstances that she experienced. While the respondent is sympathetic to the claimant's situation but other factors are in place and until these concludes and , or, evidence is provided to the contrary the respondent cannot be satisfied, on reasonable grounds , that the claimant’s financial position is in line with the standards expected of her to remain in a customer facing role.

Findings

Both parties made written and verbal submissions at the hearing. I find and accept that no disciplinary action was ever issued to the claimant, nor are there any plans to do so. I find that in line with the contract of employment the respondent has the right to move employees I find that the manner the issue was dealt with caused unnecessary concern. I find the respondent has accepted and taken steps to ensure this is rectified immediately. I find that it is not within my remit to make a comment about the requirements of the Central Bank reform Act 2010. I find that the claimant is held in high esteem and values her position within the organization. I find the respondent rules and regulations found themselves in a situation whereby action had to be taken to protect all parties. In taking everything into consideration I am making the following;

Recommendation

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.

The claimant;

1. should remain in her current temporary role
2. The claimant is returned to a customer facing role if the standards that are required of her are satisfied.
3. The parties should meet in the first instance to discuss all possible options that are available to the claimant, including where possible facilitated her in her own region, if her position is changed or altered.

Jim O’Connell

Adjudicating Officer

18^th November 2016