Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Social Worker

Health Services Provider

Representatives

Terence O'Sullivan Terence J O'Sullivan Solicitors

Sophie Crosbie IBEC

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-00041252-001

25/11/2020

The Employee commenced Employment with a previous organisation on 3 December 2001 and subsequently transferred over to the current Employer on a service transfer in May of 2003. She is employed as a professionally qualified social worker on an annual salary of €61,288 per annum for a 37-hour week. The employee invoked the grievance procedure on raising five issues in relation to her contract of employment, a promotion, caseload, changes in work practices and an administrative issue. The Employee was not satisfied that the internal grievance procedure gave her an adequate resolution to the issues raised.  The Employee sought a promotion to senior worker grade and a change to a different supervisor in her work. The Employer submits that the claim is without merit and should eb dismissed.  

The Employee raised a formal grievance under the Employer’s grievance procedure on the 12 February 2020. The grievance contained 5 specific strands:

1.        Contract Dispute:

On return from extended Carer Leave in 2019 the Employee was of the understanding there was no availability to return to her 3 days a week in the Adult section of intellectual disability services as per her contract at that time, but she was assured by management that she would be accommodated there eventually. She facilitated services on a good will basis on the understanding that she would return to Adults services. She is presently working in the Children’s section. The Employee submits that the Employer was in breach of her contract by denying her the previous arrangements that existed for her.

2.       Dispute regarding promotion: Clinic Risk

The Employee’s former Head of Department, Mr A, underhandedly promoted another colleague when an opening came up in the Clinic Risk department, despite the Employee’s greater experience in the role. The other colleague had access to specialist training which she was denied, therefore, the other colleague had been in a better position to be promoted.

3.       Adult Caseload Dispute.

The Adult Interim Head of Department assigned the Employee an adult caseload while she was temporarily in charge. When the permanent Head of Department, Ms B, took up her position she ordered the Employee to close her adult casework immediately. The Employee protested and explained her position to her, but she was not listened to and was advised that she could 'work in protest'. The Employee felt that the attitude of Ms B and the withdrawal of the caseload was unacceptable.  She felt humiliated in the way it was handled, which she believed was an attack on her dignity.

4.       Changes in Work Practices.

New changes in work practices had been ordered without any discussion, such as requiring the new Head of Department, Ms B’s, permission in supervision to close a case. The Employee claims that this had implications in terms of undermining her social work authority.

5.       Administrative Practices:

The Employee claims there has been continuous disruption and lack of clarity regarding the control of information and databases. The Employee submits that this has implications in undermining her social work practice. The previous manager had left a data base filled in with open cases which had been closed down by Ms B. She believed that there was a lack of transparency and technical inefficiency.

The Employee submits that all of the above issues continued to impact on her day to day work life. The result of the effect of the totality of the experiences was that her dignity at work has been very subtly and gradually eroded.  The Employee submits that the impact of this was felt back in

October 2019 when she had to take 2 weeks off due to the accumulation of issues.

The Employee is not seeking compensation but instead proposes to transfer out of her present location so as to avail of a change in supervision. She also proposes that she should be regraded upwards to Senior Social Worker Grade 3.

The Employer claims that the grievance is without merit and that all the issues raised have either been resolved or were not actually plausible grievances in the first place. The Employer further submits that the grievance process was fair and reasonable at all times.  The employer responds in the following way to the five specific issues as follows:

Contract Dispute:

The Employee did not raise her grievance on her return from Carer’s Leave in 2019. The Employer submits that the Employee’s contract is not specific to Adult Services and contains a flexibility clause with regard to the location and role. Furthermore, the Employer claims that the Employee confirmed at stage 3 of her grievance that she now wishes to remain in Children’s’ Services rather than seek a position in Adult services therefore the grievance has been resolved or, as it still remains, is misconceived.

Dispute regarding promotion: Clinic Risk

The Employer submits that there was no job created nor promotional opportunity opened. Notwithstanding this, this was a historical issue that occurred with a previous Head of Department and was never raised as a grievance at the time. The Employer claims that the employee was misinformed on this issue and had she raised it at the time it could have been resolved immediately. The employer submits that the Employee’s trade union raised a general issue around Clinical Risk Role/opportunity at the time, but no individuals were named, and the employer provided the trade union with an explanation that was accepted by the trade union.

Adult Caseload.

The function of a head of department is to manage employee’s workload and this includes allocation of case load. The Employer submits that the Employee was aware at all times that the interim manager’s role was temporary, as was the allocation of adult casework to the Employee. The permanent head, Ms B, was simply doing her job when instructing the Employee to close her cases and revert to children’s services. The Employer claims that Ms B did not tell the Employee to finish up her caseload immediately but that, in essence, the dispute was about the Employee’s return to Children’s Services. The Employer submits that the Employee’s permanent role in Adult Services was filled in 2011 when the Employee was on a career break and there was nothing the service could do to reverse this position.

Work Practices.

The Employer submits that the Employee’s ’s issue here was that she believed that previously she closed cases without consultation with the head of department. She now accepts that in complex cases there needs to be consultation with the Head.  The Employer submits that the Employee accepted that her grievance was resolved at Stage 2 and that this was noted in agreed minutes of the meeting.

Dispute regarding Administrative Practices:

The Employer submits that the Employee confirmed at Stage 2 grievance that she had not raised this issue with her line manager. According to her line manager, the database provides information to the organisation regarding the status of cases (as discussed in the children’s forum and individual supervision) and caseloads of all social workers. It assists in determining unmet needs and also assists in performance management of employees. The Employer contends that the e Employee had not raised this issue at first instance and had agreed, at stage 3 grievance, that she would revert to her line manager on this. The Employee was treated exactly the same way as other team members in terms of access to the data base and this matter is one which can be brought up at team meetings.

Dignity at Work.

The Employer refutes the claim that the Employee’s dignity at work was in anyway eroded or negatively affected as a result of the foregoing issues raised as a grievance.  The Employee’s grievances were deemed resolved at Stage 2 grievance, yet the Employee was unwilling to close them out. The Employer submits that it is not open to an individual employee to decide to unilaterally cease supervision simply because she has difficulty with how a new manager changes system of operation. As can be seen from the grievance, the Employee was unhappy about being moved back to Children’s Services and took a contentious approach to the issue. The other two grievances against her line manager were simply about changes in how her new manager organised the work. The Employer submits that the recent Code of Practice on Bullying at Work clearly sets out that offering constructive feedback, guidance and ordinary performance management while of itself may be unwelcomed by an employee, is not classed at bullying.

The Employer submits that the Employee has not focused on the five grievances raised or focused on any particular solution to those issues. Rather, she is focused on justifying why she feels aggrieved and a belief that she is entitled to ongoing financial compensation arising.   

The Employee in this case made it clear at the outset of proceedings that she was not seeking compensation in this case per se but in her original statement of her dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) she did  set out two proposals to settle her grievance: (1) a promotion to Senior Social Worker Grade 2 and (2) A transfer out of her present location to facilitate supervision from another source. I advised the Employee that I had no power to recommend her promotion in a highly regulated profession, which is governed by strict public service guidelines. The Employee’s second proposal has already been facilitated in that she has agreed a transfer to Children’s Services at another location thus resolving the supervisory issue.

In investigating this dispute, I cannot but take an overarching view that the five separate component grievances have either been resolved or have dissipated since first being lodged by the Employee.

Contract Dispute

It is difficult to see how there was a breach of contract, as the Employee contends, when she was moved out of a three-day arrangement in Adult services, on her return to work from a career break. The Employee did not contest the fact that her position in that capacity was temporary for the duration of the interim department head. Her original contract with a service provider, that transferred into the present Employers realm, quite specifically states that the work location will be determined by management. The Employer submits that when the Employee returned from a career break, her previous position had been filled, as allowed, and that the Employee did not raise her concerns in the period January to June 2019 with her previous department head.   The Employee has now intimated that her choice is to remain within Children’s services at a new location. I deem this grievance to be resolved.

Promotion Dispute.

The Employee submits in her dispute claim to the WRC that a previous manager had “underhandedly” promoted another colleague to a position that became available in   Adult Clinic Risk. The Employee claimed that she (the Employee) had more experience of working with adults. However, when pressed on this matter the Employee accepted that there was no promotion or job created, but she believed that the allocation of training to the colleague in question put that colleague in a more advantageous position for promotion if a position became available in the future. The Employer submits The Employee also accepted that she did not make a grievance at the time. The Employer further submits that the training was identified to a colleague in the department to enable her to have the relevant skill to handle the caseload and that this decision was within the ambit of the department head’s duty. I have to distinguish fact from perception on this issue and the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that this specific grievance was misconceived.

Adult Caseload:

The Employee was unhappy with the fact that the new department head had ordered her to close her caseload immediately. The Employee accepted that she knew that she was on a temporary assignment but was clearly unhappy with the manner the caseload was taken off which she claimed was devoid of fair procedure. The Employer contends that the Employee refused to give up the caseload and continued to attend the adult forum meetings despite being instructed to hand up her adult cases. The Employer refutes the case that the Employee was asked to give up her cases immediately or without due notice but was given adequate notice to do so.  The Employer submits that the Employee continued to work “under protest” but this was in relation to being moved to Children Services and did not relate to the instruction to close cases. In considering this matter I note that the Employee refused initially to give up her cases and continued to attend adult meetings even though she was instructed otherwise. After hearing the submissions of both sides and now mindful of the fact that the Employee is now working in Childrens’ Services by agreement, I cannot see how this grievance remains current.

Work Practices:

The Employee submitted that new changes in work practices had been ordered without any discussion such as requiring the new Head of Department, Ms B’s permission in supervision to close a case. The Employee claimed that this had implications in terms of undermining her social work authority. The Employer submitted that the Employee agreed at a grievance meeting in February 2020 that this matter was no longer an issue. The Employee did not dispute this assertion therefore I find that this has issue has been resolved.

Dispute regarding Administrative Practices.

The Employee raised issues here with regard to access to databases that were now closed but which were previously accessible under a previous department head. The Employee accepted that she had not raised it initially with her line manager. I can only deal with grievances that have been not been resolved after the full grievance procedure has been exhausted. The Employee had agreed to bring it up with her line manager. The Employee accepted at the hearing that this was not a dispute that I can investigate.

Dignity at Work.

The Employee has alleged that the effect of the totality of the experiences was that her dignity at work has been very subtly and gradually eroded.  The Employee submitted that the impact of this was felt back in October 2019 when she had to take 2 weeks off due to the accumulation of issues. It is clear from the submission of the Employee at the hearing that since her return to work from a career break she feels she has been subjected to unacceptable behaviour from management which she believes amounts to bullying. The Employee accepted that she was aware of the Dignity at Work procedures but chose not to utilise them because she felt it would not serve her well.  It is not within my remit to investigate substantive bullying claims, but I do find that she was clearly unhappy with the operational management practices of some Department Heads. There was also deep unhappiness expressed about her move back to Children’s services which I believe is at the heart of this unhappiness. Such unhappiness is not necessarily a manifestation of bullying and no evidence was presented to me of specific details or otherwise of her understanding of how bullying is described or specific details of what she considers bullying behaviour.  I have to give a certain weight to the fact that no formal bullying complaint was made by the Employee, and I conclude that this forum is not the place to raise such allegations, when the internal Dignity at Work procedures have not been utilised to allow named individuals to respond to such claims.  

Conclusion:

It was clear from the hearing that the grievances first raised by the Employee in February 2020 have been resolved by either the effusion of time, further clarity or the occurrence of certain events. The two proposals the Employee had put on the table to resolve the issue have been dealt with. The Employee accepts it is not within my gift to recommend promotion in a regulated professional grade. However, she has moved by agreement to a new location under different supervision.

I recommend that the Employee accepts that her dispute with her Employer, which consisted of five different grievances as identified in my findings, has been resolved.

Industrial Relations Act 1969.