ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001638

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/05/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes

Procedure:

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

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant was appointed as a director of social work by her area manager and undertook the role on the understanding that the she would be re-graded and regularised in the role. This did not occur. She served in the role for a period of 19 months prior to her retirement. She took up the position in early 2014 on foot of particular risk issues having been identified by the area management team which threatened the organisation as it related to issues of governance and levels of stress being experienced by front line staff. Senior area management initiated a process of review and amelioration. A new structure was proposed and agreed with the area manager in August 2014 and included a reference to the interim appointment of the complainant to the position of director of social work (following expression of interest from the existing pool of principal social workers) and reference to seeking to progress the plan to approval at national level. Meetings with the area manager and the complainant accompanied by her trade union to discuss levels of remuneration for the post were interrupted when the area manager left her post. Her replacement acknowledged the requirement for the post. The chief officer on appointment refused to honour the arrangement on the basis that the decision was taken without the necessary approval. The complainant entered the arrangement on the basis that approval would be sought nationally, did the work at a particularly difficult time and had a reasonable expectation that she would be appropriately rewarded.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent submits that the area of recruitment and promotion within the organisation is legally underpinned (Public Service Management [Recruitment and Appointments] Act, 2004). The moratorium on recruitment and promotions, 2009 and the Employment Control Framework 2013 also operate and therefore the alleged appointment could not have been made. The proposed restructure of the social work function was subject to national approval and there is no evidence that approval was sought or granted. The post of director of social work is not comprehended within the respondent’s structure or otherwise. In June 2015 responsibility for the service area was removed from the area manager and the respondent has no access to her at this time. The respondent has taken a consistent position in this matter from the outset and has re-iterated on a number of occasions that it is bound by the terms of the 2004 Act.

Decision:

Regardless of the nomenclature I understand that the post entailed management of the entire social work team within a specific geographic area of the respondent’s national operation and in particular the management of a group of which the complainant was a senior member hitherto. I accept that no post with the specific title exists. Nevertheless it was not contested that the complainant did perform the function during a difficult time and I suspect that such role was critical. I acknowledge the constraints that exist for the respondent as it relates to the operation of the 2004 Act. I note that the complainant was provided with an assurance that the matter (the plan) would be pursued to approval at national level as required.

That said the appropriate remedy in all the circumstances in my opinion is that the respondent would pay the complainant an ex-gratia payment of €10,000 (say ten thousand euro) as an expression of its gratitude for the additional work undertaken by her in the latter part of her career. The payment would be made and accepted in full and final settlement of all matters arising from their employment relationship and without the creation of any precedent whatsoever.

I so recommend.

Dated:   19^th October 2016