ADJ-00002888

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002888

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/09/2016

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: 

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation: 

The complainant has been employed since 1977 and works as a technician in the respondent’s school of business. He works four days per week in Galway and one day per week in Castlebar.     This dispute arises from a mandatory redeployment requirement that he move departments to electronics. The compulsory redeployment of a technician is without precedent and has been undertaken in the absence of normal protocol viz. invitation in respect of expressions of interest or proper consultation. Interim discussions took place between the parties and it was agreed that expressions of interest would be canvassed but that the complainant would have to back-fill subject to his suitability. This was rejected by the trade union in his behalf. The respondent informed the complainant that the decision to redeploy had been made by its employment control framework group pursuant to a review of the technical resource according to set criteria. The respondent refused to allow a meeting with the group or provide details of the criteria employed. The complainant redeployed at the end of February under protest. He was informed at the end of March that his role was now exclusive to Galway. It has never been the position of the complainant that redeployment of technicians might never occur but that in line with various agreements and in accordance with practice in the public service such redeployment should be conducted and “implemented in an open and transparent manner with full regard to the need for consultation with individuals and the representative Trade Unions and in line with the legislative requirements.” (CPA)   Additionally it would appear that the respondent failed to engage in appropriate internal consultation and discussion and that it’s rationale changed in the course of the events outlined above. No discernible selection criteria were applied. The position as at December 2015 (wider canvass of technicians) and the back fill of the role of the successful candidate meant that he and he alone was given no choice in the matter. The failure to consult has meant that the complainant has been particularly burdened insofar as he has undertaken advanced academic study in the area of Information Systems and IT for personal and professional development and for the benefit of the respondent. The respondent has deliberately failed to consult, ignored collective agreements, failed in its contractual duty of good faith and engaged in poor industrial relations practices.                                     A recommendation is sought to return the complainant to his former position pending the outcome of a joint employer trade union review of technician deployment across the respondent’s area of operation.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation: 

The respondent submits that there has only been one technician required in electronics since 2012. That technician retired in December 2015. “The decision was taken, given the financial difficulties …..to redeploy the complainant, an electronics technician, to Electronics ….. “. A letter was sent to the complainant in November with a view to an engagement in the matter and a meeting was held on December 16^th. The respondent offered “to seek applications from interested parties from the technician grade. If there are any applicants the [respondent] will assess their suitability for the post and the [complainant’s] suitability to replace them.” The offer was rejected by the trade union.                     An instruction was issued to the complainant on the 12^th of January to report to the Department of Electronics however he did not comply with the same. He eventually transferred on the 22^nd of February 2016.                                                                                                                                                                    The right to redeploy staff to meet organisational needs is enshrined and acknowledged in various National Agreements at both national and sectoral level.

Decision: 

I am satisfied that in the circumstances described the respondent was within its rights to redeploy the complainant. The offer to canvass the wider technician group and backfill on the basis of suitability was reasonable in all the circumstances. Consequently I am not in a position to make a recommendation in favour of the complainant as petitioned. 

Dated:   22 March 2017