Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

worker

Recreational Services

Representatives

Jay Power SIPTU

 HR Manager

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-00040453

16/10/2020

The case is brought by SIPTU on behalf of their member who has been absent from work arising from an accident where his bike skidded while at work and he hurt his hip. The worker for a time had to look after his mother who suffered from dementia. Arising from his difficult personal circumstances and his deteriorating mobility he requested a transfer to a public site very close to where he lived. The vacancy at that site arose due to the long-term absence of a colleague. The worker stated that if he was facilitated, he could have continued in employment. At a point in the dispute management made a promise that they could see themselves to resolving the dispute soon. However, this was a hope rather than a commitment and nothing materialised.

The Organisation stated that in fact the vacancy that the worker wished to be redeployed to was not vacant. It is true that it did become vacant arising from a long-term absence; however, not for the period that the worker now claims when he seeks compensation close to 2 years salary. The fact is that the vacant role has become very problematic for the Organisation due to ongoing anti-social behaviour and threatening gatherings that frequently occur at the site. This has given rise to an operational review of how best to monitor the site. Consultations are continuing at the site, and it has been proposed to move towards an automated security monitoring solution. It is for this reason that the vacancy that the worker wished to be transferred to never materialised.

The worker believes that he was unsympathetically treated. He had genuine personal needs to be accommodated. The Union believed that the matter would be sorted based on a communication that all would be sorted in the very near future.

The Organisation did make attempts to facilitate a transfer from the Southside to the Northside of the City. However, this offer was not viewed as suitable. The fact is the site that the worker wanted to move to was not available as it was becoming more and more challenging as a night shift watch due to anti-social behaviour.

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

There was a position vacant very close to the worker. However, that position was vacant for months and not years. Due to circumstances out of the control of the Organisation that vacancy which only arose due to long term sickness of another colleague was not suitable arising from anti-social behaviour at the site.

The worker may have had an expectation of being offered that role; however, the facts are that it was not suitable.

The worker cannot take up another position presently due to ongoing treatment for a medical hip issue.

Arising from the medical complications of the worker and the hostile nature of the site that he wished to transfer to, the facts do not support the perception that a reasonable solution for both parties was available. The fact is the site was not suitable due to anti-social behaviour and the workers hip problem has worsened.

However, there was a delay and a promise that matters would be resolved. That was a promise that in hindsight could not be met and that principally arose due to circumstances outside of the Organisation’s control. Based on delay and an unintended miscommunication by the Employer I recommend compensation of €1500 to made to the worker.

Delay-Loss of Earnings-Request to Transfer