Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Executive Planner

Local Authority

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-00006114-001

25/07/2016

The Complainant is an executive planner and the Respondent is a Local Authority.

This case is unusual in that it comes about as a result of a redeployment in 2014, but was not brought by the person redeployed or their previous employer, but the Complainant who worked in the department into which the person was redeployed.

The redeployment was governed by the Public Service Agreement (Croke Park Agreement) 2010-2014 and the Haddington Road Agreement.

This dispute has had a long history dating back to a reference by SIPTU /LAPO to the Local Authority Oversight body and later a hearing with the LRC in 2014. Independent binding adjudication (hereinafter called the 2015 Adjudication) took place in relation to that case.

The Complainant’s case is that as a result of the redeployment she had lost a potential promotional opportunity and suffered distress in the process.

The 2015 adjudication was to establish what the correct redeployment procedures were, whether they were adhered to properly, whether all reasonable options were explored and whether the terms of the PSA/HRA were applied correctly.

The 2015 adjudicator found that no action should have been initiated once the union had raised a complaint and the post should not have been filled until all processes were exhausted.  

The Complainant’s case is that the process was flawed and that it left her feeling devastated and distressed and denied her an opportunity to be promoted into the post of senior executive planner. The lost opportunity had led to negative financial and personal affect on her.   She also complains of delay in dealing with her complaint. She proposed that the Respondents support and sponsor her in a doctorate programme which would be a positive reasonable and equitable resolution.

The Respondent’s case was that the matter was already dealt with by independent binding adjudication and shouldn’t be heard by me. They also submitted that there is no detrimental impact from a financial or job perspective on the Complainant and the Respondent has no case to answer.

The Respondent appreciated the filling of a sanctioned vacancy under the redeployment schemes was difficult for existing staff. However the opportunity to compete for a vacancy was never a guarantee of success.   Promotion would be conducted through a competitive interview process.

The Complainant was entitled to apply for any competition for which she is qualified at any time now or in the future.

My role is to establish if the procedures used by the Respondent conformed to the generally accepted standards of fairness and objectivity that would normally be used in cases such as this.

I can find no basis on which to differ from the conclusions reached by the independent adjudicator in 2015.

The parties to the 2015 adjudication were the Respondent and SIPTU/LAPO. The Complainant was not a named party; however she was a representative of SIPTU/LAPO at the meeting which took place on the 25^th of June 2015.

I find that the facts of this case apply to the department as a whole and not just to the Complainant.

I note that at the time of the redeployment, the Complainant was on secondment to a neighbouring Local Authority.

I appreciate that the Complainant feels that she has been in limbo for the past six years and finds herself reporting to a person who she feels more qualified than.  

The circumstances of the redeployment gave rise to a collective dispute which affected more than the Complainant. I note that the others affected have been promoted out of the department.

The Complainant does not appear to have pursued a grievance against the Respondent before referring this case to the WRC. All available internal, local and /or alternative dispute mechanism should be exhausted by the parties before such a referral.

I recommend that the Complainant engage in the grievance procedure with the Respondent and that both parties approach the processes with the shared desire to find a workable outcome to the situation they find themselves in.

I recommend the following course of action:

1. That the Respondent clearly outlines in writing details the grievance procedure and the timeline for same within 42 days from the date hereof.
2. That the Complainant exhaust all internal appeal and other dispute resolution mechanisms for addressing her grievance before considering further referral of same to the WRC under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.
3. That the Respondent deals with the Complainant in a sensitive, efficient and expeditious manner.

Industrial Relations

Redeployment

Exhaust internal procedures