Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Paramedic Supervisor

A Public Body

Representatives

Coleen Minihane , SIPTU Official

 Employee Relations Manager

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00015767-001

13/11/2017

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seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 (Withdrawn)

CA-00015767-002

13/11/2017

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

CA-00015767-003

13/11/2017

This claim involves a workers request for an inter base transfer . Th Employer has accepted the transfer request . The parties attended the hearing following an impasse in stage 3 of the Pubic Body Grievance procedure .

The claimant commenced work as a Paramedic with the Employer in 1999 and secured a full time rostered position in 2000, in the town where he lives.

Promotion followed in 2010 in a neighbouring Ambulance base. The Claimant experienced some interpersonal difficulties from a supervising officer there .

In 2015, the claimant transferred back to his original base to take up supervision of an aspect of the service. There was some uncertainty surrounding the official confirmation of the transferred position and the claimant sought clarification. He received a clarification on October 7 which stated “I am assured it will be ok “.

The Claimants Union clarified that these events pre-dated the eventually agreed National Transfer Policy which emerged in 2015.

The Claimant pressed on with his work and following the advice of a Manager removed his name from the National Transfer Database.

In August 2016, the claimant was informed that he was to be compulsorily transferred back to his base of 2010. It was then that he learned that his current base was temporary and his substantive position was at the 2010-2015 base.

The Claimant took issue with this approach as he believed it inaccurate and was further aggrieved when the position was given to a transfer from the national panel on medical grounds.

In October 2016, the claimant was given an assurance that he would be returned to his preferred work base and he very reluctantly returned to the 2010-2015 base which was removed from his home. He took steps to re-register on the National Transfer Database to maximise his chances to re-align to his desired base. He understood he was placed first on the panel for his chosen areas.

In early February ,2017, the claimant was again by passed a position at the desired base. He challenged this only to learn that the transfer was contingent on accepting a demotion from his current position, yet this was not put to him to accept or reject. He became very demoralised.

On April 4, 2017, the claimant registered a grievance

“ ….. I had a legitimate expectation that I would be returned to X as soon as was practicable. I had acted to my detriment to facilitate the transfer of a colleague ….”

The Grievance proceeded to stage 3 where on July 6 2017, the Employer set out the position to the Union. The sole issue was to transferred back to the claimants desired base at the “earliest given opportunity, at either Grade “

The Employer agreed on a without prejudice basis” to actively review the matter with a view to reaching a satisfactory solution for you “

The transfer was to be prioritised to encompass either the entry grade or the claimants actual grade, whichever arose first.

The Claimant sought to explore this further but failed and the matter was referred to the WRC on 13 November 2017.

The Union on behalf of the claimant contended that he had been overlooked repeatedly in his quest for transfer. He was devastated by this. The Claimant presented as highly experienced and loyal to the service but was intent on secures a nearest to home base.

The Union requested a recommendation to make this happen with immediate effect.

The Employer outlined a background to the service and set out the key services offered through highly skilled staff. The Employer submitted that the Claimant had been afforded his full terms and conditions of employment as a lead emergency technician and had been treated in a fair and reasonable manner in his request for a transfer from his present base.

The Claimant his work history in the Acute services in June 1999.He was approved for transfer to an Ambulance Station from April 2001. He was promoted to Lead EMT on 12 April 2010 with a sub tontine location of Southern Division.

The Claimant was assigned to a base within this division. He was then transferred temporarily with effect from June 20, 2015 owing to “exceptional personal circumstances”. On 24 October, 2016, the claimant returned to his original base to accommodate a transfer request from an Advanced Paramedic. This coincided with a same day request submitted by the claimant for transfer to either of his two preferred locations at his current grade.

The Employer submitted a copy of the National Transfer Policy dated August 2015 and made explanatory statements on how it operates in practice.

The Employer confirmed that the Claimant had indicated his transfer performances in 4 categories January to June 2018. The National Transfer panel was subsequently amended from March 27 2018.

The parties met at a stage 3 Grievance procedure meeting on 28 June 2017, where the Union outlined the claimants need to be facilitated with a permanent transfer to Ban try following an extended period of disappointment.

The Grievance Meeting yielded an outcome document where the Employer gave an undertaking to “actively review” the matter to pursue a resolution by prioritisation of the claimant’s request. This was to address the exceptional circumstances presented at the meeting.

On July 22,2017, the Union, on behalf of the claimant confirmed that they were prepared to accept the findings provided the complainant would relocate to his desired base within one month. The Employer clarified that” it was not possible to identify a timeframe for transfer”. The matter was subsequently raised at the WRC.

The Employer introduced LCR 21489 National ambulance Service, North Leinster (HSE) and a Worker, where a Paramedic had sought a permanency following a transfer to a temporary position.

“The Court fully accepts that the criteria in accordance with which vacancies at the relevant grade within NAS are filled are set out comprehensively and fully in the National Transfer Policy. The workers claim before the Court is effectively an attempt to circumvent the terms of the collective agreement embodied in that Policy.” The claim on appeal was overturned.

The Employer contended that it had accommodated a temporary reassignment from the 2010 base. The Employer remains committed to presiding over a realisation of the transfer request to either of the claimants two preferred desire locations. The Employer reaffirmed that the claimant was assigned to the broader base of the Southern Division.

The Employer requested that the Adjudicator consider the terms of the July 6 letter carefully as the Employer had already agreed with the Union to prioritise the claimant for transfer.

CA-00015767-001: The Transfer

I listened carefully to the submissions made by both parties to this Dispute and I found that the Dispute stands mostly resolved between the parties bar an action plan for implementation. I found the parties united on the transfer request .

I found it unusual that the parties chose to let time slip on the clear possibilities contained in the July 6 ,2017 letter which was scripted on a without prejudice and personal to holder basis to enable a resolution in this long running grievance which has clearly disadvantaged the claimant.

I find that it is essential that the claimants uncertainty should be resolved in favour of a permanent reassignment at the earliest possible moment to meet his needs which were not disputed. I would also add a rider in making this pronouncement. This transfer should be a new start without a look back on the previous communication breakdowns. It is important to secure closure in this case. This closure will be achieved by manifestation of the long-awaited transfer.

I asked the parties to engage on the potential to reach a mutually agreeable way forward and I was grateful for their concerted efforts on reaching a Negotiated Agreement in this regard.

I have incorporated this Agreement in my decision. I have found merit in the dispute as presented.

CA-00015767-003: Due Process

I have not found merit in this aspect of the claim as it has been addressed in full by the agreement to move forward in the first claim before me.

I recommend that the parties move immediately on their agreed action plan to resolve this matter in the claimants favour .

Ø  Without prejudice to either party’s position, Ambulance Management are agreeable to prioritising the Complainant’s request to transfer to his desired Ambulance Station.

Ø  The Complainant is ultimately seeking a transfer to the grade of LEMT in the area in which he lives and accepts that the transfer may be implemented on an incremental basis subject to the availability of approval to fill vacancies.

Ø  In this regard, Ambulance Management will offer the Complainant the option to take up the next approved Leading EMT or Paramedic position available in either of his two named bases (locations known to the parties).

Ø  The Complainant will continue to be prioritised by Ambulance Management with regard to the above transfer options until such time as the Complainant is ultimately holding a permanent LEMT position in his preferred location.

Ø  Ambulance Management are agreeable to ensuring that the Complainant is supported in maintaining his skillset as an LEMT throughout this period in so far as is reasonable and practicable.

The above is particular to the circumstances of this case and is in full and final settlement of this case. The above is without prejudice and without precedential value

2. CA-00015767-003: Due Process

I have not found merit on this aspect of the claim as it has been addressed in the first claim. I do not find in favour of the claim .

Request for Inter Base Transfer