ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003117

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/08/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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).

Attendance at Hearing:

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The Complainants worked for the Respondent since March 1985.

The Complainant became a supervisor with the Respondent in November 2001.

She was working under protest since 1^st of December 2015.

She had been acting as a senior supervisor two days a week prior to the implementation of the changes in her workplace. The centre in which she worked was in the process of closing and she was redeployed to a community based house in a different location.

She raised a number of concerns with her manager. Her manager advised her to put in a grievance. This was not her preference.

The Complainants grievance related to her transfer in December 2015 from a day service centre to a community based house.

She felt that she was identified as suitable for transfer to this new role and area because she lived in the area. She felt as a supervisor, she should not have been asked to take on the new role. She believed she was alone in her treatment as a supervisor or senior supervisor in having to provide the new service.

The Claimant’s grievance was investigated by the regional director. The Claimant attended same with her SIPTU official.

She appealed the decision made on foot of that investigation re her move her to the new role. This appeal was not upheld.

In her submission the Complainant stated that she was more than willing to work in any day service setting.

The Complainant was offered a role in a day service in another town in the province. This was refused by the Complainant.

The Claimant’s submission was that her offer to go and work in another day service area was conditional upon that it being a temporary arrangement until a position became available in the unit where she had a preference to work in. The Complainant was aware that a position was filled in that unit by a person from outside of the Respondent’s employment. The Complainant was very disappointed as to why she was not offered that role. The Complainant felt there was no clarity about this role or the filling of this role.

The Complainant sought an external mediator to facilitate a solution of a dispute through a mediated process.   Her complaint was that there were no meaningful discussions with her or her union in relation to her transfer to the new role and what her job description would be. She felt that the change was mismanaged and changes were introduced in a haphazard way with no plan and no vision. Her submission was that a subgroup would be set up with a view to engaging in meaningful basis.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent’s case is that the change in practice is in line with government policy for intellectually disabled people (New Directions policy), that the claimant had been selected for the role due to her familiarity with the two service users that were moving to the new setting and that the claimant had received training in the new policy and further training was offered to the claimant.

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.

Both parties submitted written and verbal submissions at the hearing.  

I find that having carefully examined all documentation supplied, reviewing the grievance procedure which the Complainant had a copy of, the grievance brought by the Complainant and the response to same, the appeal brought by the Complainant and the response to same, that the Respondent did act in a reasonable manner.

The Complainant was offered an alternative position in a day service which she declined. I appreciate that the position would have involved a longer travelling time to access the day service. It would be circa 30 minutes (each way) in addition to the time she travelled to her original working base before the changes were implemented.

The Complainant has a preference to work in a certain location which the Respondent is aware of. This location is closer to her home.

I recommend that the Complainant be made aware of any positions that arise in this location and be given an opportunity to apply for these roles (subject to having the required qualifications etc.).

I recommend the Respondent carry out a review of its communications procedures with regard to queries from staff and that emails should be replied to within a reasonable period of time.

I do not recommend that a subgroup should be established to negotiate on the changes implemented by the Respondent.

I note that the Complainant’s complaint regarding breaks and lunchbreaks is still under review by the Respondent and I make no recommendations in regard to same.

Dated:   7/11/2016