ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00023480
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Senior Manager | A Government Body |
Complaint(s):
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-00030031-001 | 01/08/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/10/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The complainant has been fulfilling a senior management role on a series of temporary specified purpose contracts since March 2015. She claims that this is not a temporary role, either in the true meaning of the word or as per the employer’s own guidance, and is seeking a recommendation conferring permanency in the role. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant has been acting up in a senior management role on a series of temporary specified purpose contracts since March 2015. She invoked the grievance procedure in March 2019 claiming that in 2013, the body clarified that temporary appointments extending beyond 12 months in duration ‘should only be on an exceptional basis as they would run counter to the concept of temporary appointments’. While she exhausted the internal grievance procedure, the matter was not resolved to her satisfaction and she is now seeking a recommendation conferring permanency in the role. Her representative highlighted a number of WRC recommendations in support of her claim as well as a Labour Court recommendation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent acknowledged that the claim has been processed through the various stages of the body’s grievance procedure. It stated that the reason for the requirement to have the post filled in an acting capacity arose from the elevation of the substantive post holder to another acting position. It claimed in the first instance that it is unable to confer permanency for the complainant in the role as the substantive post holder is also acting in the role he has moved to. It was also stated that there is ongoing national engagement arising from the raising of this matter and asked for a recommendation to be deferred pending a review of the situation, the outcome of which should be known imminently. |
Findings and Conclusions:
While the respondent has requested that a recommendation be delayed until a review is completed, it could not guarantee when this would be finalised although it believed that it would be imminent. In making my recommendation however, I must recognise that the complainant has already been acting up in the role for 4.5 years and it is reasonable not to expect her to wait any longer, especially in light of the body’s own circular which states that temporary appointments extending beyond 12 months in duration ‘should only be on an exceptional basis as they would run counter to the concept of temporary appointments’. I therefore recommend that the complainant should be made permanent in the acting up role and that this should take effect from the date of acceptance of this Recommendation. This Recommendation reflects only the specific circumstances of the complainant should not be taken to have a wider implication for other employees. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the complainant should be made permanent in the acting up role. |
Dated: 26/11/19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill