Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Public Health Nurse

A Health Service Provider

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-00017853-001

09/03/2018

The complainant referred a dispute against the respondent to the Workplace relations Commission on the 9th of March 2018.   The complainant referred the dispute in respect of the respondents alleged failure to honour an offer of a public health nursing post in a named location (location A) and its subsequent failure to offer her later vacancies which arose in location A.  A hearing in respect of these matters took place on the 1st of October 2018.

The complainant submits that

In 2012 she applied for a transfer to a Public Health Nurse (PHN) post nearer to her home to a Health centre in location A whenever a vacancy might arise there,

She was at the time living in D near location A and commuting to work to a named location C a considerable distance from her home, a transfer to location A would mean less travel for her on a daily basis,

In 2015 a vacancy arose in location A and this was offered to the complainant by letter dated 6th of May 2015 by the Health Business Service (HBS) arm of the respondent,

She was to indicate her acceptance of this offer by 23rd of July 2015,

The complainant emailed by return accepting the offer and emailed again before the closing date confirming her acceptance of the transfer offer,

On 6th of August the complainant’s Director of Public Health Nursing (DPHN) Ms. S acknowledged the transfer and confirmed it would be facilitated,

The complainant made plans to move in the 3rd week of November,

The complainant later communicated with Ms. M, DPHN responsible for the network area covering location A seeking an indication of when her transfer would be facilitated,

Three weeks prior to the November date Ms. M verbally indicated that the vacancy did not exist,

Ms. M also advised that the complainant could transfer to somewhere else in the area and eventually move to location A,

The complainant was offered location B in the same area, the complainant did not accept the offer of location B as it would not mean any significant reduction in her travel time to and from work and instead she remained in her post in location C, which was the same distance from her home as location B,

The complainant was never given any explanation as to why the first transfer offer was revoked after she accepted it or any reason as to why she was not offered the second vacancy which arose in location A,

The Health Centre at location C where she had worked has since closed and she now works in location E, a similar distance from her home to location C but still further than location A,

The complainant continues to travel a distance of 60 km round trip daily to work as she was not facilitated with a transfer closer to home to location A, this adds an extra hour to her daily commute.

The respondent submits that

In June 2015 a PHN post became vacant in location A,

A request to have the post filled was processed by the DPHN for the area Ms. M and was progressed for approval through the appropriate channels,

At that time service issues arose and due to exceptional circumstances relating to service issues and in response to an internal employee relations matter another PHN was deployed to the vacancy in location A which had been offered to the complainant,

The DPHN was entitled to do this and it is in line with national policy which protects a managers right to assign staff within their area of responsibility,

On 24th of July 2015 the complainant made contact with the DPHN responsible for Location A regarding an offer of a vacancy for a PHN in location A which she had received from HBS. The DPHN informed the complainant that the position had been filled by internal deployment but that she could be offered a post in location B an adjoining geographic area, the complainant refused the offer of the post in location B,

In April 2016 a further vacancy arose in location A which was filled by internal reassignment in response to service pressures,

Further communications took place with the complainant in December 2016 and the complainant was offered a post in location B in the same geographic area as location A pending a vacancy arising in location A,

The complainants journey from her home to work in location C was a 30km journey, location E is a similar distance from her home, the journey from the complainant’s home to location B is a 16 km journey,

Under the Public-Sector Agreements, it is agreed that internal redeployments take precedence over transfers. It is also accepted that redeployment may be within 45km of work or home.

The operation of the transfer panel has since changed, and it is no longer possible to select a health centre location but rather applicants for transfers must apply for a specific geographic area and not a health centre,

The DPHN is committed to ensuring that the complainant will offered the next available position in the specific network area.

It is clear that the complainant was initially offered the PHN position in location A and that a vacancy had arisen in location A at the time. It is also clear that the complainant accepted this offer in accordance with the parameters set down and before the closing date stated in the offer.

It is accepted that the offer was made to the complainant by the HBS but that the position was later filled internally by the DPHN for the area.

The DPHN for the area maintains that it is managements right to fill such vacancies internally in the first place before they can be filled from the transfer list. However, it is clear that in this instance there appears to have been a lack of communication between the DPHN and the HBS responsible for transfer offers.

The respondents position is that the post in location A was filled internally in response to service issues and that an individual was internally redeployed to the vacancy to resolve an internal employee relations issue.

It is also clear from the accounts given by both parties and the timeline of events that this decision to redeploy an internal staff member to the post was made after the post was offered to the complainant via the HBS system.

It is thus clear that option of redeploying an internal staff member to   the post in location A as a means of resolving an internal employee relations matter was not at the time an option which was open to the DPHN as that post had already been offered and accepted by the complainant via the HBS transfer system and so the position was no longer available to be offered to an internal staff member.

It is clear from the evidence adduced and information provided that there was a breakdown in internal communications within the respondent organisation and that the PHN position in location A once accepted by the complainant should not have been offered as a solution to an internal staffing problem as that position was no longer available. The respondent at the hearing stated that the complainant had not immediately accepted the offer and so it went to someone else.  

The respondent advised the hearing that exceptional circumstances arose which necessitated the movement of an internal staff member into the position which had already been accepted by the complainant.

The complainant told the hearing that she was advised of this three weeks before she was due to transfer to location A and that she had already made preparations and arrangements for the transfer at that stage.

The complainant has sought compensation due to the fact that she has had to travel 29 km daily to and from work as opposed to 16km each way if she had received the transfer to location A.    I am satisfied that the complainant in this case has not found herself redeployed to an area which is in excess of 45 km from work or home. Accordingly, having given a lot of consideration to the matters raised here I consider that a recommendation for compensation for the excess mileage undertaken by the complainant in her commute to and from work is not necessary or appropriate given the circumstances of this case.

The complainant in this case was offered and accepted a PHN post in location A and this offer was not honoured by the respondent. The respondent states that the criteria for transfer requests has now changed and that the complainant can no longer nominate a specific Health Centre location but can only select a Network area and will be facilitated with the next available vacancy in that network area.   However, given that the complainant was previously offered and accepted a post in Location A, an offer which was later revoked, I recommend that the complainant be offered the next available post in location A.  

Having given the issues a great deal of consideration, I recommend that the complainant be offered the next available post in location A.