ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ - 00031232

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	A Local Authority Manager	A Local Authority

Representatives

Anne O'Connell, Solicitor of Anne O'Connell Solicitors

Kevin Langford, Solicitor of Arthur Cox, Solicitors

Dispute

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-00040502	20/10/2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Date of Hearing: 4/11/2021, 01/04/2022 & 17/08/2022

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following 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 information relevant to the dispute.

For procedural correctness an additional complaint - CA 00040501-002 - under Regulation 10 of the “TUPE” Regulations S.I. No 131 of 2003 was withdrawn at the Hearing.

Background:

The dispute concerns a relocation of a Worker, a Local Government Official, from his existing and long-standing Office and Duties to a different physical location and new duties by a Local Authority.

The Worker was on a gross monthly salary, at date of referral of case, of €2,273 per fortnight for a 39-hour week.

The employment began on the 14 December 1978 and continues.

It is important to note that serious efforts at securing a local agreed resolution via an Agreed Third Party were made by the Adjudication Officer. Regrettably these efforts proved unsuccessful, and the Dispute was referred back to the Officer for formal Recommendation.

1: Summary of Workers Case:

The Worker had been employed for almost 21 years in the Property Division of a major Local Authority. On the 9th June 2020 he was informed by e mail that he was being transferred to a different physical location and Council Department. He maintained that the transfer was grossly unfair and completely unwarranted. Loose talk among colleagues, regarding the transfer, had been injurious to his good name.

He maintained that the Employer had discriminated against him on the grounds of his Age and was in serious breach of their own Staff mobility policies. In addition, the Employer had added insult to injury by unilaterally withholding overtime Payments that he was due.

Attempts to seek resolution at local Employer level had proved unsuccessful and he had to seek the assistance of the WRC.

Oral Testimony and substantial Documentary materials in support of his case were presented by the Worker to the WRC Hearing.

2: Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Officer /Worker is a Local Government employee. As such he is subject to re location within the Council’s range of Departments and physical Office locations. All proper procedures were followed, and all Staff policies were observed. The Age of the Employee had absolutely no bearing on the matter.

The issue of outstanding overtime had been explained. A proper claim once submitted via formal procedural channels would be satisfactorily addressed.

Substantial Oral testimony was given by the Staff Relations Manager supported by the Director of HR and Managers from other Departments that had been involved.

The Staff Relations Manager / Senior Executive in HR, an officer of considerable experience and high professional standing, gave good evidence and displayed a positive attitude towards getting the dispute resolved. It was recognised that the Worker had always been a very valued staff member.

None the less the final and formal position of the Employer Council was that the Dispute has no proper standing and a Recommendation in favour of the Employer should be made.

3: Conclusions:

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

A lengthy oral face to face Hearing took place on the 17th August 2022. Considerable background material, documents, policies and history were examined. The merits of a staff rotation policy were accepted as was the right of the Chief Executive to move/redeploy staff. Equally, the almost Natural Justice rights of an worker concerned to proper consultation and fair procedures , were accepted.

A vigorous cross examination of the Staff Relations Manager by the Worker Representative took place.

Various Audit reports were referenced but nothing to the detriment of the Worker concerned in this Dispute was disclosed. Procedural weaknesses in systems had been identify and had been addressed in recent times. All Overtime issues had been properly sanctioned by the relevant Higher Authorities in the Council.

In his Oral Testimony the Worker stated his wish to retire, as soon as was convenient and his disputed issues had been addressed, from the Council’s service. He had the required service for a full pension.

In discussions between his Representative, the Adjudication Officer and the Staff Relations Manger the basis of a settlement, to be proposed to all Principals for acceptance, was developed.

The Recommendation below reflects this discussion.

4: Recommendation:

4:1 Dispute CA-00040502-001

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

The Recommendation is as follows.

The absolute right of a Local Government Employer to reassign staff and physically relocate staff between Departments and Location is recognised subject to this right being exercised in keeping with parallel and equally valued Policies and Staff movement Procedures (as exhibited for example in the supporting paperwork) as negotiated with the respective Staff Associations and Trade Unions.

It is also recognised that in this case the relocation and reassignment of the Worker from his Department of some 21 years was not a pleasant experience for the Worker who had a natural expectation, in view of his impending retirement, of remaining in his long-standing position.

Two Irish language sean fhocail might usefully apply to the Council here - “nois fear a chur ina lui na an modh direach” and that the position and reputation of the Worker is absolutely unsullied. There is no “Uisce faoi talamh” in the entire process.

The overtime issue to be the subject of an immediate claim processed via the recognised Trade Union.

The Trace Union concerned to note the Recommendation from the WRC that they immediately process the claim to the HR Department.

The assurances of a speedy Managerial response in this context, given at the Hearing by the Staff Relations Manager/Senior Executive in HR to be noted.

4:2 For procedural correctness an additional complaint - CA 00040501-002 - under Regulation 10 of the “TUPE” Regulations S.I. No 131 of 2003, was withdrawn at the Hearing.

Dated: 19th October 2022