Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Mediator

A Museum

Representatives

Jay Power SIPTU

Gail O’Dowd-Maher of 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

IR - SC - 00000466

15/07/2022

The worker had been covering a role for 8 years when he was told it was being supressed and he had to revert to his previous role.

The worker commenced employment with the employer on 10 June 2006 as an Invigilator/Mediator. In January 2015 he took on the role Development Office (Private) to cover maternity leave. In late 2015 the colleague who had been on maternity leave applied for a career break and the worker was offered a fixed-term contract until 1 July 2018 for the role of Development Officer (Private).  The worker was no longer working any weekends. The contract was extended on several occasions.

In October 2021 the worker became aware the post holder was to resign the post and he had an expectation he would fill the post on a permanent basis. He was offered a further extension in December 2021 on the basis he would remain in place until a new HEO role had been advertised and filled. The worker had the opportunity to apply for the new role. As he had no assurances that he would be successful in filling the role the worker did not sign the extension letter.

The dispute was taken up by SIPTU but there was no satisfactory resolution and the worker was unilaterally returned to his original post after 7 years and 6 months in the role of Development Officer (Private).

The worker says he should have been accommodated in the Development Officer role, or equivalent and should be given a once off payment of €1,00 for the severe strain caused.

The employer confirms the worker covered the Development Officer (Private) role during the maternity leave of a colleague. Then he worked on a fixed-term contract from 1 January 2016 to 1 July 2018 when the colleague went on a career break. The contract was clear the worker would revert to his original post at the end of the contract. The worker was allowed to keep a sum of money he received for the weekend work that he had carried out in his original role but was not required in the Development Officer (Private) role. This contract was extended on a number of occasions as the colleague extended her career break.

The employee who was on career break resigned and the employer applied to the appropriate Government department for the granting of a new HEO position with the suppression of the role of Development Officer (Private). Sanction was granted and the worked was asked to stay in the Development Officer (Private) role until the recruitment for the HEO position of Development Manager had been completed, in line with the new structure of the employer. The worker applied for the role but was unsuccessful. He returned to his original role on 12 September 2022.

The employer says a restructuring process began in mid-2021. It resulted in the creation of a Management HEO role and the Development Officer (Private) role being suppressed. This structure could be put in place when the employee on a career break resigned from the role of Development Officer (Private).

The employer says the worker suffered no loss in his terms and conditions when he reverted to his original role.

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

The worker clearly enjoyed working in the role of Development Officer (Private) and had an expectation he would take the role on a permanent basis if the colleague on a career break resigned. When the colleague did resign, he was surprised to be told the employer had undertaken a restructuring process and the role of Development Officer (Private) was being suppressed and a different role advertised. This role was known as a Development Officer but the emphasis was very different to the Development Officer (Private). The worker applied for the role but was unsuccessful.

I have some sympathy for the worker but the employer has the right to manage the organisation in the manner they see fit. They waited until the permanent holder of the Development Officer (Private) resigned before proceeding to suppress the role. The worker was on a series of fixed-term contracts as “career break cover”.  When the career break came to an end he reverted to his original post.

It is my conclusion, that in the particular circumstances, the employer acted correctly.

IR employer and worker engagement