ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002599
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Health Service Provider |
Representatives | Forsa Trade Union | HR Manager |
Dispute:
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 - 00002599 | 06/05/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Date of Hearing: 28/08/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any information relevant to the dispute. Both parties made detailed written submissions in advance of the hearing. The hearing took place in the Hearing Rooms of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Carlow.
Background:
The worker attended for interview and received a job offer from this employer. Before accepting the job, there were discussions and an exchange of emails with her potential new manager on working arrangements. The worker claims that given the commitments on working arrangements that she accepted the job and resigned from her previous job. After a few days in the new job, the worker claimed that the manager was reneging on the commitments given. These issues became contentious towards the end of 2023. The worker used the grievance procedure to try and resolve the dispute. As some issues remained unresolved, the dispute was referred to the WRC. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker’s representative outlined that arrangements on working hours and office attendance were discussed and agreed prior to taking up the new job. These were on a par with the arrangements in her former job. These were important considerations which influenced the worker in accepting the post. Considerable efforts were made to resolve the dispute through the grievance procedure and subsequently through discussions with management. The worker was stressed and could not attend work due to the attendance pattern expected of her. She was anxious to return to work on agreed terms as soon as possible. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer representative outlined due to the seniority of the role that attendance during normal office hours was essential. Although it was accepted that arrangements were discussed with the manager prior to taking up the job, there was no formal agreement and terms were always subject to review based on service needs. The worker had used the grievance procedure and there were detailed findings and recommendations. Although efforts were made to resolve the dispute after the grievance findings issued, agreement could not be reached on all issues. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. This dispute has been ongoing for a considerable period. Two senior managers have already assessed the grievance and made recommendations. The current recommendations under stage 3 of the grievance procedure are detailed. The recommendations outline the steps required of both parties to assist in resolving the dispute. Both parties agreed that these recommendations formed the basis of the settlement of the dispute. From the worker’s perspective there was one aspect of the recommendations that she had a real difficulty with. She wanted to be facilitated with remote working two days per week, particularly as this was one of the terms discussed prior to taking the job. Therefore, the only contentious recommendation is in the paragraph ‘In line with …………. and to be reviewed after 6 months once induction is completed.’ Both parties agreed that this is the only part of the recommendations that continues to be in dispute. It is understandable why this issue is contentious. The worker has only been in the job for a brief period and induction can be easier with more office attendance. However, the worker is relying on the commitments given prior to taking up the job. Also, she will still be attending the office two days per week.
Therefore, to resolve this protracted dispute, I am recommending that the employer facilitate the worker with two days remote working with a review after the shorter period of 3 months. This recommendation is made on the basis that it is the only change/amendment to the full grievance report recommendations and particularly the paragraph- ‘In line with …………. and to be reviewed after 6 months once induction is completed.’
I also recommend that the employer accept the undertaking by the worker to attend some extra office days during the initial induction period.
I further recommend that the parties make every effort to implement the full detailed recommendations of the grievance report.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend the employer facilitate the worker with two days remote working with a review after the shorter period of 3 months. This recommendation is made on the basis that it is the only change/amendment to the full grievance report recommendations and particularly the paragraph- ‘In line with …………. and to be reviewed after 6 months once induction is completed.’
I also recommend that the employer accept the undertaking by the worker to attend some extra office days during the initial induction period.
I further recommend that the parties make every effort to implement the full detailed recommendations of the grievance report.
Dated: 03-09-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Terms of Employment |