ADJ-00004529

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004529

Complaint for Resolution:  

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/11/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath 

Procedure: 

Following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General and under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969, I confirm I have inquired into the complaint and have given the two parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation: 

The Complainant handed in a booklet of Submissions at the hearing of this matter. The Complainant was invited to go through her submission and to explain her situation. The Complainant has worked with a Health Service provider for up to 27 years. In particular, the Complainant has worked in the area of the assessment and provision of Services for children with disability. In and around 2008 the Complainant reduced her hours to 29.25 per week (This has since risen to 31 hours pursuant to productivity agreements). The Complainant is a liaison Officer and takes on files after they have been through the Assessment process. By 2012 the Complainant had been working closely with a particular assessment officer (in a particular district) and a good rapport and routine had been established.

In and around August 2014, management asked the Complainant to help out with files that needed a liaison Officer assigned to them and coming from a separate and neighbouring district. The arrangement was thought to be temporary but over the course of time the Complainant has found that her workload has increased exponentially and that she has come under severe pressure dealing with her own workload as well as dealing with the multiplicity of extra files coming from the second district. No control was placed on the types of extra work being given to the Complainant who found that there could be an exceptional amount still to be done on any of the files that had purportedly been through the Assessment process.

Over the course of time the complainant made her difficulties know and sought some sort of intervention such that her workload could be reduced and/or that the Employer would accept that she was as good as working fulltime per her Grade 7 comparators. The Complainant got no satisfaction and lodged this complaint on the 2^nd of August 2016. 

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation: 

Each of the Respondent’s three witnesses gave evidence at the hearing and a submission prepared by the Respondent was opened and gone through. In essence, the Respondent has invited the Adjudicator to examine the workload of other Liaison Officers working in similar Districts in the prvincial area. The evidence adduced tended to demonstrate that the Complainant was not doing more work than her colleagues on a pro rata basis (some of her colleagues worked full time).

The Adjudicator was asked to have regard for the fact that the Complainant’s issues had recently come up before local management (November 2016) and it has been agreed that the Respondent would engage an independent individual to conduct a root and branch review of the Complainant’s situation and that a Terms of Reference is in the process of being drafted for the purpose of furthering this objective. It is noted that the Complainant’s representative agreed that this process was underway and fully intended to participate with the process which will hopefully be in the very near future. 

Recommendation: 

Pursuant to Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 I make the following recommendation:

The parties were agreeable that there was some merit in proceeding with the independent review process which had been suggested at a local meeting between the parties earlier this month (November 2016). It is accepted that the meeting was a serious attempt by the Respondent to address the Complainant’s issues in a meaningful way and was most probably set up in response to the hearing pending before the Workplace Relations Commission. It is hoped that the many and varied micro issues that arose in the course of this hearing will be addressed through this independent review process but in the meantime the Recommendation is that the number of case files that the Complainant be expected to take on from the neighbouring District would be limited to two per week.

It is believed that the Complainant has a legitimate complaint and is burdened by a workload that is proving too onerous on her. By limiting the number of extra cases to two per week it is hoped that the Complainant will find the time to catch up with her workload and unburden herself of some of the pressure she is under.

The Recommendation thus made will operate until such time as a new compromise is reached through the workplace review which is in the process of being put in train. 

Dated:   12 April 2017