Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Local Authority

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00047725

The Worker stated that, following the transfer of her employment to a new consolidated unit, management sought to make changes to her role which were stress inducing and had not been agreed with her union. She also asserted that the imposition of a disciplinary sanction upon her for refusing to undertake these new duties was unfair.

Following the Worker’s move to a new consolidated unit, she stated that management attempted to impose additional duties upon her, namely scanning and idoccing documents for a few minutes each day, which had not been agreed with her union. She stated that these proposed changes were very stressful and would have caused her exhaustion. Her union representative also stated the Employer showed no duty of care to the Worker and highlighted that she should have been referred to occupational health as a result of the stress caused to her by these proposed changes.

The Worker also stated that she was not afforded a fair and impartial disciplinary or grievance process, as is stated in the Local Authority’s Grievance and Disciplinary policy, arising from her failure to agree to the changes as instructed by her line manager. Specifically, she asserted that the disciplinary process was initiated by her line manager who issued the initial work instruction. She also stated that the grievance process was not fair because the same parties who were involved in the disciplinary were involved in the handling of the grievance.

In April 2019, the Employer’s Chief Executive approved the establishment of a consolidated new unit to be staffed from their existing human resources. FORSA were advised in June 2019 through the monthly IR meeting that staff would be reassigned to this new unit and would continue to undertake the core elements of their existing roles.

Immediately following on from this, FORSA were advised by letter from the Employer’s HR department of reassignments and the grading structure as well as the reporting hierarchy of the unit. A total of seven administrative staff and four inspectors were reassigned to the unit as of July 2019 and notification letters issued to relevant staff accordingly. The Worker was one of the four inspectors being reassigned. Some inspectors continued to refuse to move as required and a dispute ensued culminating in the use of the WRC’s conciliation service to broker a settlement and the referral of three specific issues to the Labour Court. Some of the inspectors moved under protest in late 2020 and the matter was subsequently withdrawn from the Labour Court by FORSA.

Following the move to the new unit, the Worker was requested by her immediate line manager to scan and idoc all correspondence with tenants to the relevant accounts. On 6th November 2020, when directed by her Line Manager to carry out the above tasks, the Worker refused on the basis that these tasks were not previously carried out by her. The Worker was advised on 28th January 2021 that the task at issue did not constitute an unreasonable request and should be complied with as it fell fully within the normal scope of duties for her grade. On 9th February 2021, an informal meeting was held between local management and the Worker regarding her continued refusal to scan/idoc documents.

On 11th February 2021, following on from the meeting, a communication issued to the Worker confirming local management’s understanding that the Worker was continuing to refuse to carry out the required tasks. The Worker was asked to review her position in this regard and revert to local management by close of business on 16th February 2021. The Worker was advised that continued failure to carry out the required tasks could result in management having to progress the matter in accordance with the Employer’s Disciplinary Policy and Procedure.  The Worker failed to carry out the required tasks and on the 30th of April 2021 local management initiated the Employer’s Disciplinary Policy & Procedure on the grounds that she failed to comply with a reasonable instruction i.e., scanning of documents.

On 14th May 2021, a disciplinary hearing took place with the Worker and her Union representative. Her immediate line manager who was the person responsible for issuing the instruction presented an account of the issue to the decision maker (Administrative Officer) for consideration and the opportunity for the Worker to fully respond to. Both parties were allowed to present their case and the Worker was represented at the hearing. The Worker did not dispute the fact that she had refused to carry out the instruction to scan the documents as requested.

Following the disciplinary hearing, the Administrative Officer having considered all information provided by both parties issued a verbal warning to the Worker on the 18th of May 2021 on the grounds that she was failing to carry out her assigned duties. On the 26th of May 2021, the Worker appealed the verbal warning to the next level of local management i.e., Financial Management Accountant. The appeal was considered and on the 28th of May 2021 a decision was issued to the Worker which upheld the verbal warning.

Following on from this, the Worker submitted a grievance on the 17th of September 2021 in relation to the fairness and impartiality of disciplinary process conducted. This was submitted to the Worker’s immediate line manager in line with the Employer’s Grievance policy.

Having considered the Grievance submitted, the line manager issued a finding that the process was fully in line with the Employer’s Disciplinary Policy & Procedure. The Worker then appealed the Grievance decision to the Administrative Officer and a response in this regard issued to the Worker on 20th October 2021 confirming that the Employer’s Policy & Procedure was complied with in this case.

It was not disputed between the parties that the only requested change in the Worker’s duties was that she was asked to scan and idoc documents following the establishment of the consolidated new unit. I am at a loss to understand how these additional duties, which would have taken no more than a few minutes per day, could have caused her considerable stress or exhaustion and do not consider the assertion by the Worker that they would do so to be credible, especially when she was given the opportunity but declined to be trained in these new tasks.

As well as having had these alterations to her role imposed unilaterally on her, the Worker highlighted that these proposed changes had not been agreed with her union. In examining this assertion, I noted that, following conciliation at the WRC, the union inexplicably did not pursue the issues the Worker and her colleagues had around the proposed role changes to the Labour Court. I also noted that her representative could not explain at the hearing why the union failed to do so and that although she asked for an opportunity to provide an explanation in writing after the hearing, she did not do so.

I also find that the changes proposed by the Employer to the Worker’s duties, namely the scanning and idoccing of documents, which took only a few minutes per day, constituted normal change as provided for under the Public Service Stability Agreement.

In addition, I find that the disciplinary process was fair given that an independent party, and not the Worker’s line manager, imposed the disciplinary sanction and that she was afforded the opportunity to appeal. I also find that the verbal warning issued to the Worker arising from her refusal to accept a minimal level of change in her duties following a restructure was a fair and reasonable sanction and that her failure to perform these additional duties was wholly unreasonable.

I also find that the handling of the grievance by the Employer was in line with standard practice.

I cannot make a recommendation in favour of the Worker for the reasons set out above.