Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Radiographer

A Government Body

Representatives

John McCamley, SIPTU

 Internal HR

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 - 00000641

07/09/2022

The Worker has been employed as a clinical specialist radiographer with the Employer since 24 January 2000. She stated in the first instance that there was little or no consultation with her surrounding changes in the out of hours roster arrangements that operated in the hospital where she worked. She further asserted that these changes disadvantaged her financially.

The Worker is a qualified clinical specialist radiographer who has carried out and managed on-call arrangements for computerised tomography (CT) scanned services in the hospital where she works. Because she has worked solely in CT, she was not able to upskill and did not have exposure to other specialities over the course of her employment.

In 2021, it was mentioned briefly by the radiographer service manager at a staff meeting that she was considering putting a business case to management to bring in a second on call radiographer on site. This new radiographer would work alongside the other general on call radiographer but would in addition cover any on call CTs that needed to be done, which the Worker in the instant dispute was doing at the time. Despite no formal engagement or consultation having taken place with the Worker regarding the proposed changes, the new roster was implemented in November 2021. This meant that the Worker’s out of hours on call roster had been changed and she was no longer allocated a slot on the new CT on site out of hours on-call roster, which she claimed resulted in a loss of remuneration for her.

The Worker subsequently invoked and exhausted all the stages of the internal grievance process and at the final stage, it was conceded by the Employer that the consultation with her was not in line with what is expected for a change management process.

The Employer stated that, in November 2021, the hospital, where the Worker was employed, needed to change the provision of on-call patient service from off-site to onsite due to staff escalations and the implementation of a similar change in other hospitals in the group.

The Employer stated that they were happy to accommodate the Worker on the new roster that would result from this change and that she would be supported by general refresh training which she would require because she had operated as a CT specialist for many years prior to this. It was also highlighted that the change would be financially more advantageous than the previous off-site on call register on which she operated, if she chose to undergo the required training.

The Employer also stated that, in advance of the change being made in November 2021, they convened six meetings from July 2021 to end of October 2021, to which all of the radiographers were invited, to discuss the CT on call service and the team decided the only solution was to seek approval for a CTO onsite on-call service which would also support the increased activity in general on call as well.

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

While I find that that Worker was not deliberately financially disadvantaged by the change in the provision of the on call patient service because she was given the opportunity to earn more money following the change in the roster arrangements if she wanted, subject to her agreeing to be retrained in areas outside of her speciality, I also find both that the restructuring represented a significant change in work practice for her and that the consultation I would have expected prior to the change being effected by the Employer was inadequate.

My view in this regard is supported by the Employer’s Employee Relations Manager, who in partly upholding the Worker’s grievance at the final internal stage stated, in his findings, that he was “not satisfied that the consultation process carried out by line management was in line with what is expected for a change management process”.

In summary, I find that, if the consultation process had been adequate and was in line with best practice, the changes may not have been as difficult for the Worker and the resultant stress and frustration endured by her would certainly not have been as great.