ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026599
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A creche worker | A creche |
Representatives | SIPTU | None |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00033873-001 | 20/01/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/08/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 20th January 2020, the worker submitted a dispute pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act. The scheduling of the adjudication was delayed because of COVID and a hearing was held on the 27th August 2020. The worker attended the hearing and was represented by Dave Curran, SIPTU. The Head Office Director and the owner attended for the employer.
In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following 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 seeks to be restored to a managerial role in a creche operated by the employer. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker outlined that she was unfairly treated when she was demoted in circumstances where she was starting a new managerial role in the employer network of creches. She outlined her successful time working for the employer since 2016, where she has taken on additional levels of responsibility. The worker said that while she is currently certified as sick, she expected to be certified as able to resume duties on a full-time basis. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer outlined the circumstances in which the managerial appointment to not proceed. It acknowledged the worker’s work ethic and commitment in the role. |
Findings and Conclusions:
While there were differences between the parties as to what happened in December 2019, it was obvious that the parties also wished to resolve the dispute. The worker outlined that she wished to progress to a managerial role that reflected her track record with the employer. The employer expressed the wish to put this matter behind everyone and for the worker to come back to work. During the hearing, we mapped out a pathway for the worker to resume duties with the employer. The parties agreed that once certified as fit to return to work, the worker would commence the Assistant Manager role at a named creche on the 31st August 2020, working with the Head Office Director. The parties agreed that the rate of pay would be the same rate of pay as that of the December 2019 managerial role. The parties noted that the worker would have to complete COVID-related training and would need a new uniform. I adopt this agreement as my recommendation. I state that nothing of what happened in December 2019 can be used against the worker, who has demonstrated work ethic and commitment in her employment. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
CA-00033873-001 I recommend that once certified as fit to return to work, the worker return to work at the named creche on Monday, 31st August 2020 in the role of assistant manager. I recommend that the rate of pay be the same rate of pay as that of the December 2019 managerial role. The worker will be provided with the necessary training and uniform. |
Dated: 8th September 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act / childcare |