ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00005637

Dispute for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/01/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant was approached about the possibility of an upgrade in her position and discussions took place about her job content, possible additional duties etc with a view to that upgrade. However the exercise was essentially cancelled as a result of a decision by the hospital Senior Management team.

She says that her Director (line manager) failed to follow through with an upgrade proposal from Grade 6 to Grade 7 for my role. This was initiated in June 2015 as part of restructuring submission to the Hospital’s Executive Management Team (EMT) made in July 2015 and then was withdrawn by the Director in February 2016

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent says that the department manager acted in good faith in seeking to develop a more appropriate structure for the department. As part of his preparation of a proposal for submission to the EMT he had to engage in the sort of discussions with the complainant which he had undertaken.

However, she was at all times aware that any proposal was subject to such approval and it was not forthcoming. He stated in evidence that he had advocated strongly for the proposal but the EMT decided otherwise, and this would not be unusual.

There was never a commitment that the complainant’s position would be upgraded but the review of the position and the department needs continues and the proposal which was rejected may be revived at some stage in the future when it has a better prospect of being approved.

Findings and Conclusions

It was difficult to discern the precise cause of complaint in this case, apart from the complainant’s understandable sense of disappointment at the outcome and the failure of the hospital management to agree with the proposal submitted to it.

Unfortunately for disappointed hopefuls, this is normal in such matters and her disappointment is on a par with that of an unsuccessful applicant in an interview process. She had not been aware until the hearing of the commitment by her Director to advocating for the proposals and this seemed to be of some assistance.

The best things that can now happen is that the parties finesse their discussions to maximise the prospects for success at the next time of asking. However, the complainant must be aware that there will be no guarantee of success.

Recommendation:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I recommend that the parties continue their discussions to bring any future reorganisation and upgrading proposal which may be submitted to the hospital Executive Management Team (EMT) to finality, but all parties must be fully aware that this will ultimately require a ‘corporate’ decision and that participation in such preparations does not represent a commitment by the respondent to implement the proposal.

Dated:   20/03/2017