Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Architect

A Transport Authority

Representatives

SIPTU

 McCann FitzGerald Solicitors

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00045085

07/07/2021

The dispute concerns the Worker’s functions and responsibilities and his wish to return to previous levels of involvement within the Respondent.

The Worker outlined his career history in the Respondent as a Landscape Architect. He commenced employment with the Respondent in 2000 and whilst the Respondent changed entity/title over the years, he continues to be employed. The Worker stated that he initially reported directly to the Chief Architect and he detailed the areas he had “full responsibility” for – including in the areas of design, construction and management and that he had “direct input into all landscape projects and all appointments to the team of landscape architects”. He stated that his Line Manager/the Chief Architect was not expected to limit his role and that decisions were by consensus.

The Worker stated that with the appointment of a new Chief Architect there had been a steady, but slow, erosion of the landscape team and that his role had been downgraded to a more junior role. In this regard the Worker outlined a number of projects from which he considered he had been actively excluded, that he had no participation in these projects and nor was he provided with any information relating to their ongoing development apart from what was publicly available.

The Worker stated that his role had been “dumbed down” which was both professionally and personally demeaning for him. He stated that he unsuccessfully tried to resolve matters internally via the Grievance Procedure. The Worker stated that he was seeking a return to his previous levels of involvement in all aspects of his role, functions and responsibilities including in relation to attendance at meetings, participation in planning, assignment of design work, oversight of all projects involving landscape.

It is the position of the Worker that he is seeking the following recommendations:

·        That he be invited to attend meetings in relation to conceptual transport planning and not “corralled” into one aspect of operations;

·        That he be given a role in the assignment of landscape design work and a review and oversight of all projects so that the landscape aspects may be analysed and appropriately addressed;

·        That he be part of the conceptual planning process in relation to transport and related projects and be invited to attend appropriate meetings on projects at the various stages of their development;

·        That he be treated as a senior professional reflective of his levels of educational qualification, service and experience.

The Respondent outlined its background and the Worker’s employment history. The Respondent stated that the Worker’s role was within its architecture team. The Respondent stated that the subject matter of the dispute before the WRC had previously been pursued by the Worker via its internal Grievance Procedure. The Respondent stated that the Grievance Procedure was conducted thoroughly and fairly in accordance with its policy, that the Worker was afforded representation throughout and that the outcome resulted in recommendations which the Worker did not appeal.

The Employer accepted that there may have been a change in the nature of the Worker’s work and that the number of Landscape Architects had reduced. However, the Employer did not accept the Worker's complaints about an apparent diminution of his role. The Employer did not accept that the Worker was excluded from any project and stated that he absented himself from team meetings and/or refrained from meaningful participation in team meetings and discussing his work with the Chief Architect.

The Employer outlined the various projects and work with which the Worker was involved.  The Employer stated that it was its responsibility to allocate work to staff in accordance with its business strategies and priorities and available resources. Accordingly, the Employer maintained that it was neither possible nor desirable that every team member – including the Chief Architect – could be involved in every project.

The Employer stated that the Worker had not specified the manner in which his role had detrimentally changed nor had he provided any tangible examples of how his role no longer attracted respect or how his reputation was negatively impacted. In this regard, the Employer cited a particular project which it stated the Worker leads and which requires the Worker to generate designs and solutions. The Employer stated that the Worker declined an offer of additional resourcing for this project.

The Employer stated that the Worker’s role continues to be consistent with his job description and conditions of employment and that the Chief Architect had overall responsibility for effectively managing the team which did not reflect on the experience or qualifications of any individual team member. The Employer also outlined the impact of outsourcing on its various projects.

In terms of the Worker’s pay grade, the Employer stated this was in line with public sector grades and decisions made on foot of a previous externally conducted review of grades within the organisation. The Employer stated that any grade change for the Worker would impact on other staff and on the organisation’s structure and stability.

In relation to any wish on the Worker’s part for a secondment the Employer stated that the impact of this on its organisation would have to be considered and that any such proposal would require the Worker to liaise with his Manager.

It is the position of the Employer that the Worker is a valued and respected employee, that there is no attempt to limit the scope of his role and that it continues to support him including financially for CPD. The Employer stated that the Worker must continue to operate as part of a multidisciplinary team –under the overall authority of the Chief Architect. The Employer did not accept that there was a requirement or benefit in separating the architects in its employ according to their different disciplines/special areas of expertise. The Employer maintained that all were held in equal esteem and that in the wider design environment architects and landscape architects regularly work in collaboration. The Employer stated any proposal to separate the work of architects from landscape architects or to change its organisational structure would lead to practical problems in the delivery of architectural support and may lead to inefficiency, confusion, and lack of overall responsibility and decision-making. The Employer urged that the recommendations of its internal investigation be upheld.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 provides that ".... Where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended….., a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner [ie Adjudication Officer]".

In conducting my investigation into this dispute, I have taken into account all relevant submissions and documentation  presented to me by the parties and have come to the following conclusions:

·        I am satisfied that it is a matter for the Employer to determine its organisational structure – particularly in terms of reporting arrangements and the organisation of its various departments. In this context the Employer’s contention that it wishes to house employees/architects with different disciplines in the same department is not unreasonable and I accept the rationale that this can lead to greater collaboration and efficiency. I also accept that considerations and decisions in relation to organisation structures generally impact on the broader workforce. In the course of the adjudication hearing the Worker accepted the Employer’s position in relation to reporting to the Chief Architect and the department structure;

·        Having accepted that the Employer is entitled to determine its organisation structure, it follows that it is a matter for management – in this instance the Chief Architect – to allocate the work to be done in accordance with the organisation’s needs and priorities and that the Chief has overall responsibility in relation to how this is managed and/or carried out. Whilst it would be expected that the Worker would be involved in the design and planning of projects for which he is responsible or involved with – that is not to say that he would be entitled to attend all meetings related to the assignment of landscape design work or to be involved in every aspect of the review and oversight of those projects. A balance needs to be struck so that the Worker has sufficient opportunity to contribute his views/skills/expertise and after that there may be meetings which the Worker is not required to attend and in my view this should not be equated with “exclusion” or a diminution of role;

·        In the course of the adjudication hearing submissions, the matter of the Worker’s pay grade arose. I consider this is outside the scope of Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 which is not a mechanism to address the rates of pay of a body of workers;

·        The Worker stated that he was seeking an internal transfer or an external transfer or secondment. I note the Employer was not opposed to this in principle but raised practical considerations including in relation to funding, available roles and its own landscape requirements and resources. 

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. In light of my conclusions I recommend as follows:

·        That the Employer and the Worker make/continue to make constructive efforts to engage with each other in a constructive and transparent manner and in a spirit of mutual respect having regard to the functions of management/Chief Architect within the organisation structures and the position of the Worker as a senior, highly qualified and experienced professional. I make this recommendation as I am of the view that in a dynamic workplace where roles and responsibilities are continually evolving, professional esteem is generally safeguarded by transparency, constructive engagement, mutual respect and by the  provision of adequate opportunities to contribute.

·        That the Employer and the Worker re-engage in meaningful discussions with a view to facilitating – if at all practicable and if still desired – an internal or external transfer/secondment for the Worker to another suitable role having regard to his grade and salary.  

Roles and Responsibilities; Organisation Structures