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-00004727-001

22/05/2016

The Claimant is claiming that the failure of the Respondent to adhere tom proper procedures and policies has disadvantaged him in his role.

The Claimant is employed in the waste management section of   the Respondent organisation. It is recognised by all concerned that this is a   difficult section to work in. This has led to a number of incidences between   the staff that has resulted in an agreement between the unions and the   Respondent to deal incidents and the   operation of the facilities through clear and concise protocols. Therefore decision   as such as selection of staff for redeployment, particular duties require clear   procedures that leave no room for ambiguity to prevent disputes from arising.

An agreement of procedures and protocols are contained in   a jointly agreed document under the 1997 Restructuring Agreement. Contained   in this Agreement is the issue of ‘yard service’ or ‘status’ which refers to   time in waste management that is accumulated by an employee and is based on   seniority. This determines such issues as specific duties, training, driver   panels and transfers. In regard to the latter the person with the least   service is mover in the event of no volunteers. Once this takes place the   employee will go to the bottom of any panels and lose their status they held   in their previous role.

In this case the Respondent is attempting to redeploy the   Claimant to another depot, which will result in his loss of status and being   given lesser duties. The core issue in this case is the Respondent’s action   against the Claimant following vexatious allegations being made against him.   Despite these allegations being vehemently denied by him and no evidence of any   wrong doing he has found himself subject of a disciplinary proceedings on   foot of a non-disciplinary matter. He is now at a loss of his ‘yard service’   and ‘status, having agreed tom move to another shift in the same depot whilst   an investigation took place.

The Claimant’s representative outlined a series of   incidents that took place since 2015 that have now resulted in the Claimant   being sent to another depot. It is the Claimant’s contention that the   Respondent is attempting to move outside the Restructuring Agreement to   transfer him. He is seeking a return to the status quo and compensation.

The Respondent confirmed the role of the 1997 Agreement.   It was stated that one of the rules of the agreement is that when an employee   moves shift or depot they lose the status they had in their previous work   location/shift and enter the bottom of the panel in their new location/shift.   The Claimant moved shift in July 2015 as a result on an issue between him and   another member of staff as far back as 2011. As a result this led to an   agreement between the claimant, his union and the executive manager of his   department (copy provided to the Hearing).It makes no mention of any   arrangement that the Claimant would retain his status.

In November 2015 the issue of the Claimant’s move and the   whole process became an issue with the Claimant and his union which they   raised with the Respondent. This was due to letters issued to the Claimant in   May/July/September 2015. A series of discussions took place amongst all   concerned which resulted in the matter being deferred until August 2016. At   this stage a driver was required in another depot and the Claimant was   directed to move. He refused claiming status. He was removed from the pay   roll as a result. This remained the case for two weeks when it was agreed to   reinstate the claimant pending the outcome of the WRC Hearing.

I have considered the submissions of both parties. As   regards the agreement made between the parties made on 9 June 2015 which   result in the transfer of the Claimant to a different shift, as the main   negotiators involved are now retired, it is not possible to ascertain what,   if anything, was agreed in regard tom the Claimant’s status. There is nothing   on record.

Having considered the terms of the 1997 Agreement, which   deals with such matters, it could only mean that once the Claimant   transferred his shift he changed his existing his existing status and was put   at the end of the panel on the new shift. Therefore under the existing   agreement the Respondent is entitled to transfer the Claimant to another   depot unless there is a volunteer prepared to move.