Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

Martina Weir Siptu - Works Rights Centre

 HR Director

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 - 00002123

12/01/2024

The claimant has been employed as a Catering Attendant with the respondent since 1998 – she is aggrieved with the manner in which the respondent managed her proposed redeployment to the  Vegetable line in the Catering Dept. -an alternative catering line. The working arrangements on the new line were a much more attractive option for her but it did not materialise. The claimant pursued the matter through the respondent’s grievance process  but her complaint  was not upheld  .The respondent was adamant that the claimant was facilitated and advanced that the claimant had declined the redeployment to the new line prior to the completion of a trial period.

The union submitted that the claimant was being denied the opportunity to take up a position on the Vegetable Line at the Hospital – the hours of work on the vegetable line were much more attractive to the claimant. It was submitted that the claimant worked as a Catering Attendant  for 25 years and that she was diligent and effective in the performance of her duties as she prepared and delivered meals to the hospital wards .The union set out the chronology of events leading up to the issuing of expressions of interest amongst the Catering Staff for the permanent vacancy that arose.

It was submitted that the claimant was interviewed for the position on the 24th.Feb. 2023 but the appointment was conditional on a favourable occupational health assessment – triggered by the claimant’s previous absence due to a back problem. It  was submitted that the respondent was reluctant about the 4 week trial arrangement suggested by Occ. Health but agreed to a one week trial period. The claimant advised that on her first day on the line she was being trained by a trainer unfamiliar with the duties of the post. On her second day , the claimant was assigned to an inexperienced trainer. It was submitted that he claimant was worried about acquiring the required skills for the job and the Catering Officer did not approach her about support or check her progress.

The claimant advised the Catering  Manager that she did not feel sufficiently trained to work alone on the following Monday . It was submitted that arising from this exchange the claimant felt unsupported and reluctantly declined the new role.

The claimant processed a grievance through the respondent’s procedures arguing that she was not given a fair chance on the line and that she was obstructed in her attempts to transition into the post. The grievance was not upheld and no outcome was issued after the appeal with Ms.R. The Employee Relations Manager followed up with a further hearing but the complaint was not upheld. It was submitted that the processing of the grievance took 8 months.

The union invoked the provisions of the grievance procedure and the timelines contained therein – it was submitted that the time frames were consistently ignored and that this signified disrespect for both the process and the complainant.It was submitted that this negatively impacted on the claimant who did not now want to discommode the colleague who took up the position on the Vegetable line.

It was submitted that the respondent had thwarted the claimant’s efforts to address the concerns she had around the process – that this was fundamentally unfair and constituted a clear breach of procedures .It was submitted that the claimant was entitled to be awarded compensation for these policy  breaches.

The respondent set out the chronology of events leading up to the offer to the claimant to be redeployed to the vegetable line in the Catering Dept. It was submitted that based on her length of service the claimant was eligible to be offered the permanent vacancy that had arisen on this line. The claimant had been off sick and an Occupational Health report was sought to assess if the claimant was fit to return to work and for the new role.The OH report recommended a 4 week trial period for the reassignment .It was submitted that the respondent was unable to accommodate a 4 week trial period but a 2 week trial period was agreed with the claimant .It was submitted that the claimant advised after the end of the first week that she  did not want to take up the offer of the Vegetable line.

It was submitted that there was no reference to a trial  period for new lines in the union management agreement which sets out the procedure for the filling of catering attendant lines.The CPU manager confirmed that there was no requirement for a 4 week trial as the duties on the line remained unchanged each week – and advised that it would be unfair to other staff to keep the claimant’s line open for 4 weeks during the trial  period. It was submitted that the CPU manager contacted the claimant on several occasions during the week long trial period but on the last week day the claimant advised that she did not want to  take up the vegetable line. The claimant lodged an appeal but no outcome issued and a second hearing took place with the Employee Relations manager.

The claimant attended the hearing with her union rep but according to the employer she refused to communicate the reasons for the appeal and stated “she did not want to go through the information”. The appeal was concluded and the claimant was advised that the outcome would be based on the documentation already furnished.

Ultimately the grievance was not upheld .The respondent asked that the employer’s position be upheld on the basis that the claimant had been facilitated with a trial arrangement which was outside of the agreed process and the claimant had been given the opportunity to participate on the new line before accepting the new position.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I accept the union’s contention that the respondent was in breach of their own grievance procedure with respect to timelines and outcomes. Accordingly , I am upholding the complaint .