ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021327
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Paramedic Supervisor | A Health Service Provider |
Representatives | DID NOT ATTEND |
Dispute:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00027972-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
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:
The Worker is employed since 8th December 1997 and works as a Paramedic Supervisor. He has claimed that he was incorrectly refused a transfer and has sought compensation in the form of mileage and subsistence allowances to cover the travel incurred. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
In June 2014 a vacancy arose, and the Worker applied but was unsuccessful. He appealed this decision. The findings of the appeal hearing were issued on 26th August 2014. He then appealed those finding under a Stage 2 process. He requested that the position be left vacant pending the resolution of this matter. However, there was never an outcome to that appeal process. On 16th August 2018 his Stage 3 grievance was heard, and the findings issued on 31st August 2018. By this time, he had transferred to the base that he would have been on had he been successful. He then sought the assistance of his union to address this grievance. However, between January and April 2019 the Employer simply ignored his requests for a meeting. It is his position that his claim is supported by the Workforce Support Policy on Staff Transfers which was in place at that time. Subsequent versions of the policy were amended and service within became the defining requirement, not date of commencement of paid employment. The Worker’s application should have been successful as he had the longer service. It should have been service in grade not in company. He was required to continue travelling to his then base until he transferred to the new base, incurring a considerable cost. He is seeking to be reimbursed for the additional costs incurred as a result of management’s policy breach and the manner in which the issue was subsequently handled. The most reasonable way to address this is for the Employer to retrospectively recognise his new base with effect from 2014 until he transferred there in 2017 and to apply the appropriate mileage and meal allowance in respect of his travel. He is seeking a total of €31,426. The Employer failed to adhere to its own policy on transfers. This failure has placed a considerable burden on the Worker. There is also a concern with the way that the Employer handled the grievance which led to excessive delays and how they ignored requests for meetings. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer wrote following the hearing apologising for not attending and explained that there was a communication issue. They stated that they did not see merit in his grievance. They believe that it is unfounded and at odds with their policies and procedures. They did state that there appears to be matters that both sides could engage on. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I find that it was regrettable that the Employer was not in attendance to address this complaint. As this is an industrial relation matter, I find it inappropriate to adjudicate on this matter in the absence of the Employer’s input. It is incumbent on both parties to a dispute to utilise and exhaust the internal procedures before the matter comes before the Adjudication services of the WRC. I note that in the Employer’s letter referred to above they state, “notwithstanding there appears to be matters for parties to engage on”. Therefore, I find that that engagement must take place in-company so as to exhaust the internal mechanisms. I also note that there were concerns raised at the hearing about the Employer’s failure to complete Stage 2 of the grievance procedure, where they allege that there was no outcome from that investigation. I also note that the Worker alleges that he had been seeking a meeting for some four months between January and April 2019, without a response from the Employer. If this is the case, then it is a serious failure on the part of the Employer to properly engage and conclude the internal procedures. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that both parties meet to address this grievance. This should happen with immediate effect and conclude within six weeks of the date below.
I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker €2,000 in compensation for their failure to conclude Stage 2 Grievance and their failure to engage earlier this year with the Worker to address his grievance. This should be paid within six weeks of the date below.
Dated: October 9th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
Transfer policy |