ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: Adj-00039476
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Recruitment Support Worker | Third Level College |
Representatives | self | Jessica O'Mullane IBEC |
Dispute(s):
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-00051131 | 13th of June 2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Date of Hearing: 23/01/2023
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
Background:
The Worker enjoyed a very positive working relationship engaged in student support. A role was advertised for international student recruitment. The worker believed that he was verbally offered that role. An issue arose regarding travelling during the Lockdown period The Third Level College relies on close business relations with other Colleges in Europe. During Lockdown the ability to travel was subject to very strict conditions particularly regarding one partner College. That made travelling in this case very difficult. The worker was asked to move to another student role, with the similar terms and conditions such as the same remuneration but without travel. This decision was made for business reasons and the College also wanted to be fair to the worker. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker believed that he was offered the role with international travel and that role was taken away from him. It was a verbal offer. He feels aggrieved at how this was handled. He thought that any issues he had about travelling could have been resolved by better communication. He was very upset at how he was treated and resigned his position and left the College. He didn’t avail of the internal grievance procedure because he wasn’t aware of it. While he did receive a copy of the staff handbook, he thought it related to his previous role and not this new job. The worker soon after the resigning found another role with a Third Level College and on a higher salary. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The worker was highly regarded. The College tried to do the right thing by offering him another role on similar terms. The period in question was very difficult and business travel was subject to many requirements and business partners also set out their requirements. On balance and based on good business reasons the College was limited in how it could allocate work to this worker in his new role. It is for this reason that it transferred him to another similar role but without the requirement to travel. The worker has suffered no loss of earnings, he didn’t use the internal grievance process. The College allowing for the tough business circumstances it encountered and revenue challenges, was reasonable in how they attempted to resolve the matter. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The worker did not avail of the internal grievance process before he resigned. He has gained similar employment on a greater salary soon after resigning. The dispute is really about a perception of not being very well treated. On the facts the employer had limited options. Communication may have been more difficult due to lockdown. I recommend that the worker accept €2000 in full and final settlement of any dispute concerning the new contract. As this was agreed to at the hearing by the worker, I recommend that the College in full and final settlement of this matter pay the worker €2000. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The worker did not avail of the internal grievance process before he resigned. He has gained similar employment on a greater salary soon after resigning.
The dispute is really about a perception of not being very well treated. On the facts the employer had limited options. Communication may have been more difficult due to lockdown. I recommend that the worker accept €2000 in full and final settlement of any dispute concerning the new contract. As this was agreed to at the hearing by the worker, I recommend that the College in settlement of this matter pay the worker €2000 in settlement of the matter concerning the new contract.
Dated: 02/02/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
New Role- Contract- Transferred-Resignation. |