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-00026405-001

20/02/2019

The Complainant has been employed by the Respondent since 9th January 1995.

This complaint submitted under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 20th February 2019.

Since 2006 the Complainant has been part of the EIT.

In March 2017 she was directed she was transferred to another team to cove for a colleague who had gone on Maternity Leave. The Complainant’s substantive post in EIT was not backfilled at this time.

The Complainant was requested during this initial period of cover an extension of her colleague’s maternity leave.

During this time management stated that they were awaiting feedback on the future of the EIT from senior management.

In March 2018 the Complainant’s colleague returned from maternity leave however the Complainant was not returned to her substantive post I the EIT, she was redirected to cover another position. The Complainant undertook this direction under protest while her union representative made several attempts to arrange a meeting with management to discuss same.

It should be noted that at this stage the work in the Complainant’s substantive post was being covered by agency staff.

Union’s position.

The Respondent should acknowledge that the Complainant’s substantive post is in EIT.

The compensatory claim for €5,000 is justified noting the aberrant actions of the Respondent.

Conclusion.

The Respondent has not acted in good faith or in an honourable manner in respect of the Complainant’s claim.

The facts of the case are not in dispute.

Changes were happening, and it was not straightforward on what the Respondent strategy would be moving forward.

The Respondent acknowledges that the Complainant has worked for 17 years in the Counselling / Development area and are open to considering a compromise ring fenced to the Complainant’s unique circumstances.

The ‘ring fenced’ compromise suggested by the Respondent can be outlined as follows:

1.       The Complainant returns to her substantive post in EIT and spends 80% of her working time in that position.

2.       The other 20% of her working time is spent doing the PHN services.

3.       The Complainant would be based in one area and her office location would be the same as her EIT colleagues.

After some consideration the Complainant was willing to accept this compromise.

This compromise is ‘ring fenced’ to the Complainant and should not be used to create any precedent at any time in the future.

My recommendation is that this ‘ring fenced’ compromise is accepted by both parties.

I would like to thank all present for the professionalism at the hearing.

As outlined above.

Industrial Relations.