ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00015055

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/11/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969, 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.

Background:

This dispute refers to a Clerk who is seeking a recommendation under S13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 in relation to being afforded an opportunity to transfer to vacancies that he maintains he was entitled to apply for under a collective agreement. The Complainant submitted that he notified the Respondent in 2008 that he was interested in a transfer to a Regional Office however he contends that he was not informed of the vacancies when they arose. He is looking for the matter to be redressed.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in an auxiliary role on 18th March 1986 and in February 2000 he took part in a competition for the role of Clerk and he was successful in this competition. He maintained he has been in an acting role since November 2002.

In accordance with the organisation’s Transformation Through Partnership 2000 Agreement, the Complainant maintained that he was entitled to a transfer to the Regional Office when vacancies became available. He maintained that he was not advised of vacancies that arose and as a consequence he has not been provided with an opportunity to transfer to the Regional Office, other than acting in a temporary vacancy in during 2016. The Complainant maintains that other colleagues were appointed to the Regional Office and maintains that through the Partnership Agreement he should have been provided with the opportunity to transfer.

The complaint advised that in November 2008 he submitted his interest to be considered for a move to the Regional Office and from that time he has not benefitted from being moved to a post in the Regional Office where vacancies arose.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent indicated that the complainant did not qualify in accordance with the initial transfer arrangements under the Partnership Agreement, and that he would not have qualified for a transfer until he made it known that he was interested being on a list.

The Respondent argued that other collective agreements relating to the filling of temporary vacancies to permanent roles had impacted on the intent of the 2000 Agreement. It also maintained that only one vacancy appropriate to the grade of the Complainant became available, but that vacancy was filled by a person already in role and before the Complainant sought to be placed on the panel. Since then the Respondent maintained that no further vacancies have occurred, although it did acknowledge that movement of staff into the Regional Office would have occurred due to other collective agreements.

The Respondent maintained that since the Partnership Agreement had been enacted a Monitoring Group was appointed through the Labour Court to determine issues in relation to change agreements within the company. It advised that the Labour Court had issued several determinations relating to the appointment of temporary staff to fulltime status. It is in this context that hundreds of employees who were working as temporary staff for several years secured permanent status based on a mutually accepted framework. It also advised that the Monitoring Group makes decisions on the appointment of staff, and where the Monitoring Group routinely hears grievances relating to collective agreements and productivity agreements.

The Respondent submitted that the particular grievance raised by the Complainant was perhaps more appropriate to be referred to this Monitoring Group through the normal internal IR process.

Conclusions and Recommendation:

Having considered the representations made by the parties I am of the view that based on the Partnership 2000 Agreement that the Complainant has an expectation that once he nominated himself on the panel for a transfer to the Regional Office that his application should have been considered as part of the Partnership Agreement. However, I also acknowledge that a number of collective agreements may have subsequently impacted upon the application of the Partnership Agreement.

As such I recommend that this grievance be redirected to the Monitoring Group established by the company and that the parties engage in that process to resolve this complaint which appears to have had an impact on the Complainant. It is noted the Complainant is regarded as a long serving and valuable member of staff.

Dated:   29/04/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney