ADJ-00001381

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Social Worker

A Social Care Provider

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00001942-001

14/01/2016

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00001946-001

14/01/2016

The worker is employed by the employer as a Social Worker involved in Child Protection. The issue relates to a unilateral decision by management to remove the worker from his regular role and to place him on administrative duties instead.

The worker submitted two grievances to the employer. The first related to the unilateral change to the worker’s role without any discussion or consultation with him. The second complaint relates to how the employer dealt with the first complaint.

At the adjudication hearing of this matter, the parties confirmed that the change in roles never actually took place and that the complainant has remained in his substantive role. On that basis, complaint reference number CA-00001942-001 pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 was not pursued at adjudication.

The worker stated that while he was on sick leave in May 2015, two journalists attended his home and questioned him in relation to his work on historical allegations of abuse and in relation to him carrying out this work given his previous political involvement.

The journalists also made contact with the worker’s employer and raised their concerns directly. The Chief Operations Officer at the time decided that as a means of supporting and protecting him, the worker should be reassigned to alternative duties and this was communicated to him on or around 30th May 2015 at the weekend. The worker stated that this had a devastating effect on him, he was out sick at the time and there was no support available to him over that Bank Holiday weekend. The worker contends that this unilateral decision of management was punitive in nature and he could not understand how it was put in place as a supportive measure for him.

The worker stated that he had informed his employer of his previous political involvement and a risk assessment had been carried out in relation to his suitability for the role he carries out.

The worker raised a grievance in relation to his employment and a meeting was arranged with the Chief Operations Officer but did not proceed as the worker had reservations in relation to it. The HR Department then assumed the grievance was not being pursued and closed its file. The worker subsequently returned to work but despite the decision to move him to other duties, no changes to his previous duties ultimately occurred.

The two complaints were investigated by an independent investigator appointed by the employer and findings were issued to both parties. The worker confirmed that there were two outstanding issues that were of concern to him. Firstly, how were the unilateral actions of the Chief Operations Officer supposed to be supportive and protective of him? Secondly, if similar issues occur again, will the worker be faced with the same problems as before?

The worker stated that he remains dissatisfied on these two issues and is seeking a recommendation from the Workplace Relations Commission in relation to them.

The employer stated that the decision of the Chief Operations Officer was made with the best of intentions. The employer confirmed that when the journalists contacted the agency, the employer acted to protect the service and the worker from any possible publications in the media that would arise as a result. The employer acknowledged the hurt that had been caused by the unilateral decision made by the Chief Operations Officer and the timing of the notification phone call. The employer re-iterated its position that it behaved with the best of intentions and in an attempt to protect the worker and the service. The employer stated that any hurt or trauma caused to the worker as a result of its actions is regretted.

In relation to how it dealt with the grievance, the employer acknowledged that it had not handled the grievance properly and should not have closed the file when it did. The employer confirmed that there is now more consultation and cohesion within the organisation and matters such as this are now handled much differently. The employer confirmed that the worker had received an apology in relation to how the HR Department had handled his grievance.

In relation to this complaint I find as follows:

The worker has two outstanding concerns in relation to his grievances. Firstly, he stated that the decision of the employer to change his duties was unfair and had a devastating effect on him. He stated that there was no input from him in relation to the issue. The worker stated that he could not understand how a unilateral decision like this was in his best interests or in the best interests of the organisation.

I find that the manner in which the decision was made and communicated to the worker was inappropriate and unfair. I accept the employer’s position that it acted in good faith and with the best of intentions but its actions and timing clearly caused great distress to the worker.

It was also unfortunate that the decision was communicated to the worker while he was on sick leave. It is understandable the effect that this had on him especially in circumstances where due to the Bank Holiday Weekend there was nobody for him to discuss the matter with for a number of days.

However, I note that the employer has confirmed its regret at the hurt and distress caused to the worker as a result of its actions and has offered an honest explanation to him as to why it acted in the way that it did.

Secondly, the worker is concerned that the same issues could arise again in future and is seeking that procedures be put in place to protect all parties. I find that the worker’s concerns are legitimate on this point.

Having carefully considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, I recommend that the worker accepts the bona fides of the employer and the explanation given to him in relation to its handling of the circumstances surrounding the change of duties.

In relation to any future issues that may arise in relation to this worker’s employment, I recommend that the parties agree a procedure to be followed to avoid a repeat of the unfortunate circumstances that arose in this case. This procedure should be agreed within 42 days of the date of this decision.