Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Clerical 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

14/05/2021

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

The Worker is a permanent Grade V clerical officer who worked in the Finance Department of the Hospital since 2010.

The Worker was given a written warning on 11th January 2021. The appeal was unsuccessful. A complaint in relation to this issue was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission. On 5th February 2021, the Worker received an email from her Manager saying if the tasks over which she was disciplined were not performed, she could be subject to further disciplinary action.

The Worker was working in the Hospital the following day 6th February 2021, which was a Saturday. As the Manager was leaving the office he came to her desk and asked “have you anything to say to me?”. The Worker was taken aback and said “No.” The Manager said “I am here now” and she said again “No.” The Worker was upset, said she felt intimidated and lodged a grievance. She received a reply which did not uphold her grievance. She was never interviewed in relation to her grievance which is not best practice.

The Worker was notified by letter of 16th March 2021 that the Hospital were redeploying her to another department. The Workers qualifications and experience are all financial in nature. She has not been in a patient facing role. She had flexi-time available in the Finance Department but this would not be available in the redeployed area. A meeting was arranged on 30th March 2021 to discuss concerns of her Trade Union regarding the manner of redeployment of the Worker, and her grievance being used against her when she was exercising her right to refer the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission.

The decision to redeploy the Worker was upheld by the Hospital and again on appeal. The Trade Union are concerned about the terminology used in the appeal response from the Hospital Manager which are “overwhelmed, anxious, intimidated, distressed” are blaming the member and not dealing with the issues. The Trade Union do not believe the reasons given for redeployment of the member are genuine, and seek reinstatement of the member.

The Worker has been employed since 4th July 2005. The Worker is a Grade V clerical officer.

The Worker was informed of tasks required by letter dated 23rd July 2020, and meetings in September 2020 and 6th November 2020.The Respondent says these are tasks of a Grade V clerical officer in the Department. As the tasks were not completed, the Worker was invited to a disciplinary hearing in December 2020. The Worker was issued with a written warning on 11th January 2021 to remain on her file for nine months for failure to complete certain tasks. Her appeal was unsuccessful and she was notified of the outcome on 3rd February 2021.

The Respondent says they complied with SI 146/2000. The Worker was represented by her Trade Union and fair procedures were accorded to the Complainant in the disciplinary process.

Following an incident that occurred in February 2021, the Worker complained of intimidation by her Manager and she was anxious, distressed and on edge. It was evident the Worker was uncomfortable with her Manager. The Hospital have a duty of care to staff and can redeploy the Worker. This was in the best interest of the Worker and the Hospital given the interpersonal issues. The Worker previously worked in the redeployed area. Fair procedures were applied in the process.

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

The Worker received notification that her appeal against a disciplinary sanction was unsuccessful on 5th February 2021. The following day, the Manager involved in the disciplinary came to her and asked did the Worker have something to say to him. The Worker found this intimidating.

A grievance lodged by the Worker in relation to the incident was not fully investigated by the Respondent, and her grievance was not upheld. Possible redeployment was mentioned to the Workers Trade Union. The Worker was subsequently given three week’s notice of redeployment to another Department. Efforts to appeal the redeployment were unsuccessful. The Worker has been working under protest.

Given the absence of any consultation and in all the circumstances, I recommend consultation immediately take place between the parties towards a mutually agreed location for the Worker. I also direct compensation of two thousand euro to be paid to the Worker by the Respondent.

Redeployment, consultation, failure to investigate grievance properly