Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Social Worker

Mental Health Facility

Representatives

Ms. Kealin Ireland, Ireland Human Resources

 Self-Represented

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00034824-001

24/02/2020

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 13th May 1991. The Employer is involved in the provision of mental health services to the public, at all times the Worker’s role was described as “Social Worker”.

On 24th February 2020, the Worker referred a trade dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 to the Commission. In summary, the Worker alleged that she had been unfairly forced to change her place of work without her consent.  By response, the Employer stated that the move arose from clinical necessity and was permissible under the Worker’s contractual terms.

A remote hearing in relation to the same was convened and finalised on 9th December 2020. Whilst some minor technical issues were initially experienced during the hearing, the matter proceeded with the consent of all parties and was finalised to the satisfaction of same.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Employer is involved in the provision of mental health services to the public. This occurs at two separate sites within the same metropolitan area. The Worker commenced employment in 1991 and for over 19 years worked exclusively at one of those sites. In 2019, without any prior notice or engagement, the Worker was informed that she would be transferred to the other site.  The work at this site involved providing services to a different cohort of the public and was over 11 kilometres further away from the site where the Worker had previously been stationed.

The Worker attempted to engage with the Employer’s HR department to resolve the issue. While a representative from HR did meet with the Worker, the meeting was not constructive. During this meeting, the HR representative stated that Worker’s terms and conditions permitted the transfer between sites. By correspondence dated 19th September, the Employer advised that if the worker refused to transfer to the other site, she would be dealt with under the Employer’s “corrective action policy”. As the Worker was concerned regarding an apparent disciplinary sanction, she moved under protest in September 2019.

In summary, the Worker stated that her contract of employment did not allow for the transfer to occur. She further submitted that any such change can only be made with her consent, which was not forthcoming in these circumstances. Finally, she submitted that the manner in which she was dealt with by the Employer was high-handed and dismissive. 

By response, the Employer submitted that they a significant provider of mental health services. The employer is based on two separate sites within the same metropolitan area. They submitted that staff frequently moved between the sites depending on the clinical requirements of the organisation.  The decision to relocate the Worker to the other site arose from such a requirement.

On 23rd July 2019 the Head of Social Work met with the Worker as part of normal supervisory and line-management meeting. During this meeting the Worker was informed that she would be moved to the other site as part of planned re-organisation of the Employer’s activities. In the course of this meeting, the Head of Social Work went into considerable detail as to why this relocation was necessary. The Worker did not accept this rationale and withdrew from the meeting.

Following periods of annual leave on the part of both parties, the Worker met with the Head of Social Work on 15th August 2019. Again, the Worker voiced her displeasure at the fact of the re-location and the manner in which she was informed of the same. Notwithstanding the same, the Head of Social Work again stated that the proposed re-location was going to continue on the 30th September. At a final meeting on 2nd September 2019, the Worker’s representative stated that her contract of employment did not provide for proposed transfer of locations. By response, the Employer stated that the heading of the contract of employment listed the two sites, that staff had frequently moved between the sites over the years and the Worker had previously provided services to other clinics off-site. At end of the meeting, something of an agreement was reached, where the Worker agreed to re-locate under protest pending the referral of the present complaint.

In summary the Employer acknowledged that the Worker was a long standing and valued member of staff. They stated that it was this value and experience that made the re-deployment all the more necessary. In light of the same, they requested that the decision to re-locate the Worker be upheld.   

In the present case, it is clear that the Worker enjoyed a long a harmonious employment at her initial location. The proposed re-location to another site, whilst potentially necessary for clinical reasons, would represent a significant alternation to her working patterns and would understandably constitute a legitimate source of concern for the Worker. 

In this regard, I note the re-location was communicated to the Worker at the meeting of the 23rd July. In effect the re-location had already been decided upon and to all intents and purposes the Worker’s input of consultation was not sought during the decision-making process. In the subsequent meetings, it is apparent that the Employer did not resile from this position but simply re-stated the outcome.

In this regard, the location of employment is a core term of employment for a Worker and to unilaterally decide to change the same without any form of consultation cannot be said to be reasonable in the circumstances.  Whilst I note the Employer has stated that this re-location arose from a purely clinical rationale, the Worker, as a long stating and valued member of staff, surely would have valuable input in relation to the same and should have been at least consulted during the decision-making process. Her rights as an employee, whilst perhaps not the primary concern in the circumstances, were not an irrelevant consideration and the Employer was unreasonable in ignoring the same.

Having regard to the foregoing, I find in favour of the Worker and her complaint is well-founded. Regarding redress, I note that the Worker had been transferred to the alternative location for over a year by the date of the hearing. Given the passage of time, it would not be feasible to return the Worker to her previous post, and indeed such a recommendation may cause significant difficulties for the Employer. In light of this consideration, I find that compensation is the most appropriate form of redress in the circumstances. Having regard to all the circumstances I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €5,000 in compensation.

Having carefully considered the written and oral submissions of both parties I recommend in favour of the Worker. I recommend that she be paid the sum of €5,000 in compensation.

Place of Work, Unilateral Change, Consultation