ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001383
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
Act
Complaint/Dispute Reference No.
Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969
CA-00001937-001
14/01/2016
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/04/2016
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).
Attendance at Hearing:
By
Complainant
Respondent
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The complainant brought a grievance to his employer concerning the conduct of his supervisor. This grievance was not upheld and an appeal hearing was held on 26 November 2015. At the hearing, the Group HR Director confirmed that he and his supervisor would continue to work together. On 10 December, the Group HR Director issued a written decision upholding the original decision, making an 'added recommendation' that he be moved to another site against his wishes and to his detriment. We contend that he is being victimised for having made a complaint against his supervisor.
It is submitted that the decision of the respondent to move the claimant from his longstanding workplace in the circumstances described breaches S I 146 of 2000, is manifestly unfair and was in effect a disguised disciplinary sanction. Furthermore the respondent has decided that it is not in a position to hear an appeal of the same thereby breaching its own grievance procedure.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The respondent submits that the investigation of the complaint of discrimination was fair and transparent and the finding has not been appealed. The decision to relocate the claimant on foot of the complaint arose from a recommendation of the investigator and a decision to accept the recommendation was made to provide the complainant with a “fresh start” to improve his performance which had been the subject of high level disciplinary sanction. Additionally the respondent relies on clause 13 of the contract (flexibility) to justify its action in this matter.
Decision:
The complainant has been subject to manifestly unfair treatment in this case, which if condoned would have detrimental effect on the entire workforce in my opinion.
In the circumstances I recommend immediate relocation of the complainant to his original workplace (at his discretion), payment of compensation for any manifest loss (if applicable) and that any appeal of the finding of the original investigation be facilitated within 14 (say fourteen) days of the date hereof.
Dated: 20th September 2016