ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035369
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Worker | Employer |
Representatives | Richie Browne Unite the Union | Barry Kennedy |
Complaint/Dispute:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Industrial Relations Act 1969 | CA-00046519-001 | 04/10/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/05/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint/dispute.
Background:
The worker believes that she has been victimised by being required to transfer her workplace and that the issue is linked to a previous issue she had in her employment. She further alleges that there has been an inappropriate use of CCTV to monitor her in her workplace. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker is employed as a Barber. Up to the time of the referral of her dispute, she worked a 3 day week. She was based for 2 days in location ‘K’ and 1 day in location ‘J’. The kernel of this current dispute is that she was requested to transfer to location ‘F’ against her wishes. She entered a full and final settlement agreement in 2019 following a grievance she lodged concerning alleged sexual harassment. It is argued that the redeployment to location ‘F’ is not acceptable to the worker. The reason given at the time was that cover was required for maternity leave. It is argued that this is now moot. As the worker in this case has been out on sick leave since September 2021, the employment relationship is now probably irreparable. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer rejects entirely the allegation of manipulation of CCTV cameras and states that the CCTV policy of the employment is fully in compliance with GDPR regulations. The employer argues that the use of CCTV is for the protection of staff and customers and is not used in regard to watching staff. The bringing up of the full and final settlement matter is a breach of confidentiality and should not have been cited. Notwithstanding, the worker did not have to work with the co-owner. The employer states that the requirement for the worker to transfer to location F was in keeping with a business review which resulted in 3 of the workforce being asked to do some days in location F. Therefore the worker cannot be said to have been victimised. The employer wishes the worker to return to work. As location K is now closed, the worker can be offered 1 day in location J and 2 days in location F or 3 days in location F. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. There are two issues here for consideration. The worker objects to being redeployed to location F and she has concerns over CCTV camera allegedly being trained on her. I note the worker’s evidence given at the hearing, and corroborated by another person who was an employee that they were convinced that the CCTV cameras were moved each time the worker changed work stations. However, the feeling that this happened is not conclusive proof. In relation to the requirement to move location, the employer has pointed out the contractual entitlement to move the worker’s location. I note the location (K) where the worker spent most of her working days is now closed. The employment relationship appears to have been broken down and I recommend that given the closure of location K that the employer should offer the worker statutory redundancy.
Dated: 15th July 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations referral, relocation. |