FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GALWAY-MAYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No: ADJ-00002888.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute arising from the redeployment of the Claimant within Departments.
The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On 22 March 2017 the adjudication Officer issued the following recommendation:-
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.
The Union on behalf of the Claimant appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on 21 April 2017 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 20 September 2017.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Claimant against the Decision of an Adjudication Officer in a claim where he alleged that his employer failed to consult with the Claimant and did not take his particular circumstances into account when selecting him for redeployment. The Adjudication Officer held that the Institute was within its rights to redeploy the Claimant, therefore he did not uphold his claim.
The Claimant was employed as a Technician in the Electronics Department from 1997 and when the relevant courses closed in 2007 he was redeployed to the School of Business. At the time he raised a grievance regarding the transfer which was resolved. On 24thNovember 2015, he was informed that due to the retirement of a fellow Technician he was being assigned to the Department of Electronics. The Claimant objected to this reassignment as no expressions of interest were sought from other Technicians, as would be the norm.
In December 2015 to address the matter in dispute, the Institute suggested that expressions of interest would be sought for the vacant post and as there was a surplus of Technicians in the Business School, the Claimant would be required to backfill the resulting vacant position. This offer was rejected by the Claimant.
On 22ndFebruary 2016, the Claimant redeployed under protest to the post vacated by the retirement in the Electronics Department. The Union, on behalf of the Claimant, made the point that at this time the Claimant was undertaking advanced academic study in the Business field to enhance his own professional development in that Department.
The Union disputed Management’s contention that the Claimant’s reassignment came about as a result of a review of staffing requirements. It maintained that no criteria were used in selecting the Claimant ahead of his colleagues.
The Union referred to the Public Sector Agreements which provide as follows:-
- “Implementation of redeployment schemes for academic, administrative, technical and support staff across the Institutes and between Institutes and the wider Public Service as appropriate with effect from the start of the 2010/11 academic year.”
The Institute stated that since 2008, it has been subject to an Employment Control Framework, thereby subjecting it to a target headcount, which significantly contributes to its budget deficit, which has been running at a financial deficit since 2010/11.
The Institute outlined its obligations under the various Public Sector Agreements which give it a right to redeploy staff to meet the needs of the organisation in order to effectively and efficiently manage its staff resources. This it does regularly with all categories of staff.
Management stated that the Claimant was hired as an Electronics Technician, there was no requirement for two Technicians in the School of Business since 2012 and when the Technician retired in the Electronics Department in 2015, the Claimant was required to redeploy to that Department. The Institute rejected the Union’s contention that it did not engage in consultation with the Claimant. It referred to discussions on the matter from November 2015 until 22ndFebruary 2016, when the Claimant eventually transferred to the Electronic Department.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court notes that the Union accepts that the Institute has the right to redeploy staff to meet the changing needs/demands on its operational requirements. The Court is satisfied that there was an adequate consultation process in this case and in the course of that consultation an offer was made to seek expressions of interest from other Technicians. This offer was turned down. On that basis the Court is not convinced that the Claimant gave adequate consideration to possible alternatives.
Therefore the Court concurs with the Adjudication Officer’s conclusion that in the circumstances the Institute was within its rights to redeploy the Claimant and its offer to seek expressions of interest was reasonable.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27 September 2017.______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.