Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Social Worker

Care Provider

Representatives

Maura Cahalan Forsa Trade Union

  HSE Employee Relations Section

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00044461

03/06/2021

The worker was reassigned to another area arising from a complaint made by a patient. No wrongdoing whatsoever occurred, and the complaint was groundless. However, allowing for the very vulnerable state of that patient; it was decided to limit any interaction between the Social Worker and the patient. In turn that meant that the Social Worker’s job duties were reorganised.  The consequence of that reorganisation was a transfer to another geographical area and to a role it is claimed, should have been compensated at a higher rate. The worker perceives those circumstances have been used to move him into a role that had been designated as Senior Social Worker role while paying the normal Social Worker rate. The worker had been successful in applying for a higher role and was placed on a panel in the even of such roles becoming vacant. He argues that such a role in reality had become vacant, and he filled that role and should have been promoted.

The worker brings two complaints against his employer:

·       He was denied fair procedures and natural justice

·       He should have been appointed to the senior social worker role.

The worker believes that he should be allowed to return to his substantive role prior to the complaint being made against him or promoted into the more senior team lead social worker role.

The employer at all times acted in the interest of the worker and the patient. The right to redeploy is a term of the worker’s contract. The role that the worker has been redeployed to is not a senior role. The split of duties that has been assigned to him are fair and are not an overall increase in activity or responsibility. The grievance was fully investigated and the outcome while not accepted was fairly and professionally conducted.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The employer is right that no procedural or contractual term has been breached. However, at face value the Social Worker is in a worse position arising from the complaint being made against him, even though it is groundless.

It is also a fact that his direct supervisor is in a better position since the complaint was made.

The worker’s supervisor had been reassigned to a high risk care centre following on from a critical audit of that facility. It is true that the role he was reassigned to was not a team lead role and he continued to remain in the high care unit and fulfil his team lead duties. The Supervisor, has now returned to his previous geographical area and the Social Worker has in effect been redeployed into his role at that unit.

No contractual breach has occurred as the Supervisor is a team lead and has returned to his previous geographical area. The post that he held was not a senior Team Lead role; however, it was important enough to have him redeployed there, post the critical audit.

At face value, the Social Worker has been disadvantaged very significantly and his Supervisor has benefited very significantly.

It is not up to the Adjudicator to complete a Job Analysis on the role now occupied by the Social Worker or to interfere in a Public Competition. However, the facts are a senior social worker was assigned previously to that role because it demanded that a person of high skill and ability to oversee an improvement programme.

In these circumstances I recommend that a once off payment of €6000 is made for the inconvenience and greater challenge of the role that the Social Worker must now carry out; although, in the normal course of events such a redeployment would never have occurred.

Redeployment.