Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Hospital

Representatives

David Field Forsa

Eoin Haverty IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

10/02/2021

The Worker has fifteen years service and a clean disciplinary record with the Respondent.

The Worker commenced as a clerical officer and was promoted to Grade V.

For a period of time, the Worker took on a number of Grade VI tasks on the basis the postholder was sick and subsequently left. It was the view of the Trade Union that when the Grade VI officer was being replaced the duties the Worker had taken on would return to Grade VI.

In July 2019 the Workers Manager was engaged with the Worker over duties in the Department and the Trade Union was of the view the duties should return to the Grade VI. In June 2020 the Trade Union had to engage with the Department over a unilateral work study performed on the member and unilateral increase in her duties. There was a unilateral change to how a task was completed despite agreement with the Respondent on the process in 2019. There was an exchange of correspondence, and the matter was resolved with a meeting between the Manager and the Worker.

In September 2020 and 6th November 2020 meetings took place between the Hospital and the Trade Union where the member was threatened with disciplinary action if she did not take additional tasks including processing all aspects of TMS data relating to employee payroll and communicating effectively with all employees of the hospital and external agencies in a professional manner. The Trade Union sought clarification as to what was the exception as some of the tasks were affiliated to Grade VI. The Worker is Grade V. The Trade Union also sought clarification regarding the request for professional communication as the member was not advised of any unprofessional conduct.

The member was invited to a disciplinary meeting on 8th December 2019 due to “refusal to obey reasonable instruction”.

The Trade Union says the Hospital has every right to make reasonable changes to duties for efficiency but there is a process of engagement and agreement under the National Agreement. The employer does not have the right to unilaterally change or threaten disciplinary to bring in changes. The member did not refuse any duties and continued to perform Grade 5 level duties but sought clarification on the Grade 6 tasks. The Trade Union says the Hospital are in breach of their own disciplinary policy as they have not provided the precise nature of the complaint against the member.

The Worker was given a written warning, which was appealed. Trade Union believes this is completely unwarranted and the member believes this has a very negative impact for her.

The Worker has been employed since 4th July 2005. The Worker was notified of arrangements to save soft copies of documents on the system and certain tasks by letter 23rd July 2020. The Workers contract of employment provides her job description is a guide and is subject to review to meet the needs of the hospital at meetings in September 2020 and 6th November 2020. As the tasks had not been completed the worker was requested to undertake to complete the required tasks or the disciplinary procedure would be invoked. The Respondent says processing of TMS data is part of a Grade V role and the other tasks in the Department. Training was given to the Worker. The Worker did not comply with the requests. The task was taken over by a Grade VI Worker but was part of a Grade V role.

The Worker was invited to a disciplinary hearing on 21st December 2020 on the grounds of refusing to obey reasonable instructions. The Worker was represented by her Trade Union. The Worker was issued with a written warning from 11th January 2021 to remain on her file for nine months. The decision was appealed but was unsuccessful.

The Respondent says the Worker was treated reasonably and fairly in line with SI 146/2000 and their Disciplinary Policy. The Worker was informed in line with the changing needs of the Hospital certain tasks were required to be completed. The Worker was afforded representation and a right of appeal which was exhausted.

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

The Complainant’s Trade Union says the Complainant who is a Grade V Clerical officer is being requested to carry out some duties of Grade VI, previously carried out on a temporary basis. This is strongly disputed by the Respondent who say the tasks required are carried out by Grade V Clerical officers for efficiency and modernisation in the Department. Unfortunately, engagement between the parties could not resolve the issue. The Complainant then received a nine-month written warning on 11th January 2021. The Trade Union has raised concerns that the process was unfair. At this time, the warning has long expired and is moot.

In the circumstances, I make no recommendation.

I make no recommendation.

Warning moot