Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Clerical Officer

A Local Authority

Representatives

Colm O'Cochlain & Company, Solicitors

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-00022507-001

09/10/2018

The complainant joined the local authority in August 2000 and, since 2012, she has been assigned to a depot in a clerical officer position. The authority opened a new customer services office in mid-2018 and in June, the complainant was informed that she was being transferred there. The new office is approximately 5.5 km from the depot where she is based. For very specific reasons, the complainant does not wish to transfer and she pursued this matter as a grievance. However, it has not been resolved because the management has not changed their decision to transfer her. She now seeks a recommendation from me, in my capacity as an adjudicator, with regard to how her grievance should be brought to a conclusion.

The complainant has worked happily in her current place of work since 2012. In early 2012, when she worked in a different location, she said that she was subjected to a threat of sexual assault by a colleague.   She said that the threat was resolved informally and that she coped reasonably well with the help of counselling at the time. She finds the environment where she works now to be secure and comfortable and she doesn’t experience any sense of risk. She said that since she has been notified that she is being transferred, she is suffering from anxiety and low mood, she is attending counselling and has been prescribed anti-depressive medication. She is concerned that a move to a different depot would cause her significant distress and would be detrimental to her health.

At the hearing, the complainant said that a colleague who was moved temporarily to the depot decided that she would like to remain and that was permitted to remain. She said that she is interested in working in the mechanical section in the depot, but although she communicated this in her performance reviews, she has not been appointed to a job there. If she worked in the mechanical section, she could remain in the depot where she works at present.

On behalf of the complainant, Mr O'Cochlain said that the effect of being told that she has to move has had a devastating effect on the complainant and has brought back the anxiety and fear that she suffered in 2012, when a member of staff threatened to assault her. She feels protected and safe in the depot where she works now and she is open to a different job or a promotion, but she does not want to move to any other location. On June 20th, she set out her opposition to the move as follows:

She has been moved three times since she joined the Authority in 2000 and she is now very happy where she is;

Her co-workers in the clerical grade have not been moved. A colleague who objected to a move in January 2018 was permitted to remain in the depot. As a result, she considers this move personal and unreasonable;

She submitted a medical report which confirmed that the move has resulted in a significant increase in anxiety and would be detrimental to her health;

In 2012, she had a traumatic incident with a colleague who she said, threatened to rape her. She moved to the depot after that incident and she now has a sense of security there;

She drops her daughter to school each day on her way to work.

At the hearing, the complainant said that her colleagues in the depot know the identity of the person who she said threatened to rape her and they can inform her if he is on the premises. For this reason, she feels safe there and the prospect of moving has had a hugely detrimental effect on her health and her quality of life.

On May 18th 2018, when the complainant was informed that she was to move to head office, she objected because the threatened assault that occurred in 2012 happened on that site. On June 14th, she was informed that she was to transfer instead to a different office and it seems that she was open to this proposal. Her move was deferred until September, so that she could deal with childcare issues during the summer. However, she changed her mind about moving and on June 20th, she lodged an appeal against the decision to transfer her.

At the hearing into this matter, the director of the services unit explained the background to the decision to transfer the complainant. The depot where she currently works will be relinquished to a utility organisation on a phased basis and there will be very few clerical roles on that site. Alongside this change, the authority embarked on a strategy to de-centralise customer services roles and to bring them closer to residents in the local areas.   This has necessitated the transfer of staff to the office where it was proposed to transfer the complainant and the back-filling of roles in head office. In all, seven clerical officers were transferred from their current locations, and the complainant is one of these. The director said that the “transferees” were selected based on “existing staff allocations and assignments, the impact of the customer services centre on back-office services and the equitable spread of losses across the service areas.”   He said that where it was possible, he took account of the employee’s length of service, their duration in their current role, the degree of specialisation / local knowledge and the impact on the service area. He also said that it is essential that “themanagement prerogative to assign and re-assign staff as the service needs dictate is protected and retained in order that our core function of providing public services effectively and efficiently continues.”

I have given serious consideration to the submissions made by the complainant and by the management of the local authority regarding the decision to transfer the complainant from her current place of work. The efficient delivery of services to the public requires the allocation of staff resources to where they are needed. This right of transfer is always subject to the ability of the transferring employee to do a particular job and a not unreasonable level of inconvenience associated with a move. The nature of a dynamic organisation is that it will evolve and change, and this also requires employees to change and move over the course of their careers.   It is my view that the proposal to transfer the complainant is not an unreasonable one, as she is well qualified and experienced to do the job to which she is being assigned. The location of the new role is not an unreasonable distance from where the complainant currently works and she did not suggest that the transfer would impact on her ability to drop her daughter to school as she does at present.

At the hearing, it was apparent that the complainant is suffering from significant anxiety over this move, as she finds her present job location to be safe and “like a family.” She attributes her anxiety to the threat she experienced in February 2012 when she alleges that a colleague threatened to rape her.   She said that the issue was resolved informally, but she did not give any specifics about the nature of the resolution. It is clear to me however, that this matter is not resolved and that it continues to affect the complainant to the extent that she has effectively confined herself to remaining in the depot where she works for the remainder of her career.

This is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, the depot where the complainant works is scheduled to be de-populated of employees of the local authority in the medium term as it is relinquished to a utility company. Also, the colleagues that she considers to be like a family to her will eventually move on, resign and leave for various reasons and this will result in a sense of abandonment and further stress. Secondly, the complainant said that she hasn’t applied for any promotions because she is happy where she is. As a result, she has passed up the prospect of career development and financial gain. It seems to me that this is too high a price to pay for a sense of comfort and security that could diminish at any time.

Every employee is entitled to feel safe at work, and there can be no conditions attached to this entitlement. The complainant is entitled to feel safe in any location that she works in or travels to in the course of her employment and the Authority has a responsibility to ensure that this is the case.

So that the complainant can move on with her career and be capable of working in any suitable location, the incident that occurred in February 2012 must be investigated and brought to a conclusion. The Authority must deal with any risk that an incident such as that which the complainant said occurred in February 2012 does not happen again and she must be provided with reassurances that any such risk can be been properly managed.  

I recommend that, within four weeks of the date of this decision, the complainant formally submits the details of the incident that occurred in February 2012 when she said that she was subjected to a threat of serious sexual assault. The Authority is to deal with this complaint in accordance with its procedure on Harassment and Sexual Harassment. On its conclusion, the complainant is to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and the measures to be put in place to ensure no repeat of any such incident. I recommend then that the complainant moves to the role to which she was to be transferred in June 2018, or to an alternative role in a suitable location.

If, within four weeks of the date of this decision, the complainant has not submitted a formal complaint, I recommend that she transfers to the role to which she was to be transferred in June 2018, or to an alternative role in a suitable location.

Transfer of work location, grievance