Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Health Care Professional

A Health and Safety Organisation

Representatives

Jim Sheridan FORSA

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 - 00001972

10/11/2023

The worker commenced employment with the employer in 1999. A complaint was received by the WRC on 10 November 2023. A remote hearing of the case took place on 27 February 2024.

The worker has been employed by the employer since 1999 in a specific role. She is the only person in the employer’s organisation to have held this particular role and solely carried out the various functions within the role.

In early 2022, the employer advertised the for a role of the same title across a number of media platforms. Not only did the advertisements highlight the title of the role, but within the script of the advertisements, various functions and roles were outlined, all of which had solely been within the worker’s remit from 1999 until that time.  The worker had never been informed by any methods that her role was to alter, or that she was to job share or that another person would be doing her job in any way, shape or form.

The worker was surprised by this turn of events as no discussion had taken place with her regarding her role and any changes that would have a bearing on her work, responsibilities, public and private standing professionally and overall role. 

The worker sought information from her line management as to why the role was being advertised and also why she had not been informed but no information was forthcoming as line management said they did not know than it was being filled as a post.

At the same time, work colleagues and members of the public and media were asking the worker was she leaving her employment or what changes were being made regarding her role. This caused huge distress and both personal and professional embarrassment to the worker.

The worker was not informed by management of any developments in the matter until September 2022, when she was informed that a person had been recruited to fill the advertised role.

In November 2022, the worker raised a formal grievance with HR by email, regarding the advertisement of and creation of an identical role to hers without any forewarning or communication and which she felt diminished her role, rank and undermined her position within the organisation and caused her distress.

The grievance was according to the worker handled very poorly by the employer, disregarding its own Grievance Policy in a number of ways on a number of times.  After sometime, the employer proposed mediation as a method of dealing with the matter.  Issues arose in relation to the Terms of Reference for this proposed mediation.  These issues resulted in the mediator recusing himself from the process, so mediation did not take place.

Following the mediator’s withdrawal, the worker received an email from the employer informing her that her grievance was now closed.

The worker submits that her employer never abided by their own policy document; they never exhausted their own process and consequently she has never received any progress or outcome.  This needs to be addressed.

The employer entirely rejects the worker’s claim that her grievance was not administered in accordance with the organisation’s policy.

The employer submits that in 2020 in response to the pandemic the organisation was restricted following consultation with the unions and employees; the worker herself participated in these consultations and she was fully familiar with the scope and scale of the organisation redesign.

One of the outcomes of the redesign was a significant increase in the numbers employed in the organisation.  More than 150 people have joined the organisation since 2021. Additional resources have been allocated to the worker’s area.  This expansion does not in any way diminish the valuable contributions that the worker has made over the past two decades or indeed alter in any way her current responsibilities or terms and conditions of employment. Rather it is aimed at supplementing and strengthening the worker’s existing capacity in this growing area of work. 

The reorganisation required that some roles have similar duties to others and the post referred to above was advertised.  The employer disputes and is disappointed by the assertion that the worker was not aware of the creation of and competition launch for the post. The employer cannot be held responsible for hearsay or commentary from people not connected to the organisation and had previously asked the worker to rely on official sources of information.

The employer provided a detailed timeline of the events surrounding the worker’s central complaint, i.e. the processing of her complaint. The process ended in May 2023, when the appointed mediator withdrew from the process.  The mediator’s withdrawal was related to unsuccessful attempts to agree Terms of Reference for the mediation with the worker.

Following this the employer wrote to the worker telling her that the grievance process had been exhausted. In June 2023, the worker wrote to the employer outlining her disappointment in the decision and requesting that another mediator be appointed to investigate the grievance.

In conclusion the employer submits it made every effort to provide opportunities the worker to engage in a formal process to resolve her grievance.  Despite the contracting of an external mediator, at cost to the employer, such were the ongoing challenges in agreeing wording of the terms of reference that the appointed mediator felt compelled to withdraw from the process.

At every opportunity management have sought to assure the worker that she is a valued staff member and that, while the organisation continues to grow and develop, particular areas will receive increased focus and therefore will benefit from the allocation of resources.

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

 As stated at the hearing of this case, there is a background, but we are where we are, and both the worker and her employer want the matter concluded.

Both parties are open to mediation which is positive.  I believe mediation provides the best chance of restoring a positive, professional, and productive working relationship in this case. 

Grievance policy, mediation.