ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030088
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Social care project worker | Homeless and social care charity |
Representatives | SIPTU-Trade Union | Peninsula Group Limited |
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-00040216-001 | 02/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00040217-001 | 02/10/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/05/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Procedure:
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 commenced employment with the employer, a charity, as a as a night support worker in 2012. His career progressed and he was promoted to the position of permanent project worker in 2018 in a care facility, Facility a, which was designed to assist the reintegration of clients back into the community following periods spent in mental health institutions. This dispute centres on his involuntary transfer to another of the employer’s services in facility B in October 2020. He is seeking to be reassigned back to Facility A.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
This dispute centres on his involuntary transfer to another of the employer’s services in facility B in October 2020. The employer has a policy of moving staff between services and facilities every three years. He is seeking to be reassigned back to Facility A. The involuntary transfer on 5 October 2020 from Facility A to Facility B which is a frontline homeless and active addiction service was unwarranted and of little benefit to either himself or the clients whom he had served in Location A. He maintains that as many of the clients are long term, consistency of support from the same employee is crucial to their recovery and assimilation back into the community. There was never an issue about his performance in facility A. He is relying in his contract of employment which saw him being appointed to location A as a permanent project worker. It was a site-specific contract. His concerns were ignored during the grievance process as the decision was irreversible. For example, his position in location A was advertised prior to the consultation process being completed and Facility B had already been identified as the destination.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The employer is a national charity providing services to homeless persons and social care for marginalised members of the community. The employer adopted a policy of transferring all staff every few years to extend their professional experience and skills across the range of services offered by them. The charity notified staff in November 2019 of their plan to transfer workers across the services. They invited staff to indicate their preferred destinations. Thirteen staff were identified for transfer; five of these staff have longer service than the complaint; some have more. The worker’s transfer to Facility B was postponed by 3 months to allow his grievance to be investigated over three consultation meetings which were held on 18 and 25 February and the 5 March. A recommendation issued in July 2020 supporting his transfer to Facility B. The right of the employer to transfer all staff to different facilities is set out in the worker’s contract. While the advertisement for the job to which the worker was appointed did state that the job was in Facility A, staff were told at the outset that their appointments to Facility A had a life span and that they would be transferred. The worker is on the same grade and salary in Facility B.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
The employer has not breached any contractual entitlement of the worker and the right to transfer staff based on the contracts in place is indisputable. The worker’s loyal, competent and professional service to the clients is not in dispute. I recommend that in any future transfers, consultation should precede a final decision on the transfer. The employer should discuss and identify the training requirements for Facility B with the worker now that on- site training as opposed to online training may be available. I note that the worker is doing well in Facility B, but should a suitable vacancy arise again in Facility A, the worker should have an opportunity to discuss his reassignment to Facility A with the employer. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that in any future transfers, consultation should precede a final decision on the transfer. I recommend that the employer should identify the training requirements for Facility B with the worker now that on- site training as opposed to online training may be available. I note that the worker is doing well in Facility B, but should a suitable vacancy arise again in Facility A, I recommend that the worker should have an opportunity to discuss his reassignment to Facility A with the employer. |
Dated: 20-09-2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Involuntary transfer. |