Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An IT Analyst

A Hospital

Representatives

  Self

Adrian Norton IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00056773-001

21/05/2023

The title of the Respondent Hospital was amended by consent.

This referral is made on behalf of an IT Analyst (referred to herein as “the Worker”) who was employed by the Respondent Hospital from the 26th of July 2021 to the 25th of July 2022. The Worker contended that she was unfairly dismissed and as she had less than a year’s service, the matter proceeded pursuant to Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)

The Company did not concede the claim.

The matter came before me for investigation and a private hearing took place at the offices of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 12th of February 2024.

The Worker maintained that in her view there remained a need for her services as Data Architect notwithstanding the procurement of an IT Package which the Respondent contended reduced the scope of her work to the extent that the specified purpose for which she was employed had ceased to exist. The package which was acquired, and which effectively reduced the need for a Data Architect was not as effective as the Hospital thought and there were significant shortcomings with it.  Further the Worker contended, even if the need for her services had reduced there was plenty of other work to be done in the Hospital’s undertaking which she was capable of doing. When alternatives were offered by the Hospital over a series of meetings, a list of nine possible projects emerged and the Worker said that she could do seven of the nine projects however the Hospital wanted her to do the two that she couldn’t or did not want to do. The first of these projects was Cloud Warehousing. The Worker said that she could do this but that she would need to consult with a colleague, and she would then make suggestions as to how she could do that project. The other preferred project was Data Migration, and the Worker did not want to do this type of work as it was more suited to an IT Project Manager than a Data Architect and she saw this type of work as a backward step in her career progression. When agreement could not be reached on these two projects the Hospital proceeded to terminate the Worker’s employment even though she would have been willing to do any or a combination of the other seven projects or tasks that had been identified during the consultation meetings. She was traumatised by the termination process and had sustained significant loss of earnings. She sought compensation.

The Hospital was represented by IBEC, and a number of submissions and contributions were made by the Chief Information Officer of the Hospital. 

The Complainant alleges that she was unfairly dismissed. The Respondent refutes this allegation in its entirety. The Complainant was employed as a Data Architect on a specific purpose contract to develop and communicate all data-related architectural aspects of the Hospital’s undertaking. The contract terminated on 18th of July 2022 following the procurement of a new Electronic Health Record for the hospital that substantially reduced the scope of work required from the Data Architect role.

In advance of the termination of the Complainants contract, the Respondent engaged in a meaningful process with the Complainant where the possibility of alternative employment was explored. Regarding this consultation process, the Chief Information Officer stated that he was the manager responsible for IT decisions and it was his duty to assess and make recommendations to the organisation regarding its IT needs and resources and it was his professional opinion that the reduction in the scope for a Data Architect did arise from the procurement of the Electronic Health Record. He agreed that at the initial stages of consultation with the Worker nine different projects or areas were identified but the list then had to be prioritised in accordance with the Hospital’s needs. As a result, the Warehousing and Data Migration areas emerged as the top priorities for the Hospital. Unfortunately, the Worker and the Hospital were unable to reach agreement regarding the Worker remaining on to undertake either of these projects and so, the specified purpose of her contract having ceased to exist, the employment was terminated. Since the termination of the Worker’s contract the Hospital does not have a Data Architect, nor does any other hospital in the country. The Hospital does not currently have approval for the retention of a Data Architect but if the need does arise in the future sanction would then have to be sought.

The Complainants employment terminated on 18th July 2022, and she was paid in lieu of notice up to and including 31st July 2022. The Complainant took up alternative employment one month later, on the 1st of September 2022.

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

Having considered the written submissions and having discussed the issues with the parties, I cannot see where the Company is at fault in relation to the termination of the Worker’s employment.

The Worker sought to challenge the technical validity of the management decisions made by the Respondent essentially on the basis that she did not agree professionally with the assessment made by the Chief Information Officer that the procurement of the Electronic Health Record irradicated the need for the retention of a Data Architect. She advanced the view that the management decision was incorrect, and she disagreed with it professionally. At the hearing, the Worker engaged with the Chief Information Officer and maintained that she had a professional assessment which was at odds with his own and that his decision was incorrect and should not have been made.

Whilst I have no doubt as to the level of professional skill and knowledge of which the Worker is possessed her argument reduces itself to a challenge to the management decision which was made by a suitably qualified officer who had responsibility for that decision. In essence her argument was that she would not have made the decision that was made. However this is not a matter which comes within my ambit and I cannot entertain what in effect amounts to an effort to replace a management decision with the decision which the Worker would have made had the decision been up to her.

A claim for unfair dismissal cannot be mounted solely on the basis that the business decision made by management which led to the termination of employment was wrong. An employer has an inherent right to make business decisions and this right extends to the right to make the wrong decision, as that may be perceived by an employee whose employment is adversely affected by it. Absent any evidence of a lack of good faith or evidence that the decision was wholly or mainly made with a view to terminating the Complainant’s employment, the management prerogative cannot be reviewed and the argument made by the Worker in this case that the decision was wrong cannot sustain a claim for unfair dismissal.

Turning to the issue of the nature and extent of the consultation process between the Hospital and the Worker, it is arguable that, given the nature of the specified purpose contract which regulated the Worker’s employment the Hospital would arguably have been entitled to terminate the contract without being obliged to consider alternatives for the redeployment of the Worker. This being the case it stands to the Hospital’s credit that a consultation process was undertaken and moreover I find that that process was genuine and was undertaken in good faith. The fact that the process did not generate an agreed outcome does not render the termination of the Worker’s employment unfair. Management, again acting in accordance with the needs of the Hospital as those needs were perceived by management, made a decision to prioritise two tasks or functions which, if agreement had been reached, would have allowed the Workers’ employment to continue. I find that the Worker rejected these options for her own reasons but this does not mean that the options were not viable or that they were not suggested in good faith. In such circumstances I do not find that the Hospital was obliged to go against its own policy decision and to run with alternatives – apart from the options put forward to the Worker – which would have suited the Worker.

It follows from the foregoing that I do not find in favour of the Worker. However, I would like to note that the Hospital confirmed at the hearing that the Worker’s performance of her duties during her employment was entirely satisfactory, and that the Hospital undertook to provide the Worker with a positive reference as a testament to the quality of her work. I indicated to the parties that the I would note the undertaking to provide a reference as freely given by the Hospital but as I also indicated to the parties,  I would not and therefore do not make any express recommendation in this regard.

Specified Purpose Contract