This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

  Return to Search

LCR22653

FULL RECOMMENDATION


CD/22/121
ADJ-00034684 CA-00045734-001
DECISION  NO. LCR22653

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969


PARTIES :
TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL
(REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMANT MANAGEMENT AGENCY)

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)


DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms Connolly
Employer Member: Ms Doyle
Worker Member: Mr Bell

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00034684 CA-00045734-001

BACKGROUND:

2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On 10 June 2022 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-


  • "I recommend that the Respondent keep the Complainant in mind for the next opportunity to move back to Area B and that as a measure of incentive and appreciation for his co-operation he should be offered a compensatory sum of €1,000. This solution is a once off recommendation and not to be used as a precedent."

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 27 June 2022 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court Hearing took place on 29 September 2022.



DECISION :

This is an appeal by Tipperary County Council of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation ADJ-00034684 in relation to a dispute between a Worker (represented by SIPTU) and the Council. The dispute relates to the transfer of the Worker to another location.

The Adjudication Officer recommended as follow:
  • “The right of the Respondent to redeploy staff is underpinned by the contract of employment and reinforced by the Public Service Agreements. The distance of 4kms between the two locations should not ordinarily prove difficult for the employee. However, in this case he stated that the area he was transferred to was larger than his previous location and as he has childcare responsibilities, this proves difficult. In this case the Worker’s obvious skills and training in Health & Safety has made him a valuable experienced employee and in the Respondent’s words he proved to be a competent, trained operative who provides H&S back up to the GSS. Therefore in a way he is a victim of his own success. He feels he was ‘penalised’ by co-operating with the move in the first place. I recommend that the Respondent keep the Complainant in mind for the next opportunity to move back to Area B and that as a measure of incentive and appreciation for his co-operation he should be offered a compensatory sum of €1,000. This solution is a once off recommendation and not to be used a precedent”.

The Council appealed that recommendation on the grounds that notwithstanding that the Adjudication Officer upheld the Council’s ability to redeploy the Worker, an award of compensation of €1,000 was made. The Council cannot accept such a recommendation when there was nothing to differentiate the worker’s situation with other employees in the Council and wider Local Government Sector, where employees are moved and redeployed regularly due to evolving business priorities and requirements.

The Council has the ability to transfer the Worker to other work locations when required and his contract of employment specifically states “the council reserves the right to assign you to any premises in use by the council. You are to reside in the area in which your duties are to be performed or within a reasonable distance thereof”. Transfers happen on a regular basis, as staffing requirements are reviewed on regularly throughout the year and resources are allocated where needed in order to satisfy business requirements. In this case, a decision was made to transfer the worker following a review of staffing requirements. The Worker, who is held in high regard by the Council, was transferred to another location because of his specific skill set. There was engagement with the Worker. There is no justification for any award of compensation as transfers occur frequently and widely throughout the council and the sector.

SIPTU submits that the Worker was unfairly selected for redeployment and there was no meaningful engagement with him in relation to the transfer, as the decision was already made. The Worker is aggrieved as he fully cooperated with the transfer on the strict understanding that he would return to his original base when another worker was trained up. He was selected for transfer because of his health and safety experience, and, in the Worker’s view, there are other workers who can now carry out that role. The Worker has been adversely affected by the move, as this has caused difficulties in terms of managing his work/life balance. The Worker seeks that the Court recommend that he is redeployed back to his original base with immediate effect, and that he is awarded compensation for the manner in which he has been treated by the employer.

The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions made by the parties at the hearing.

Both parties fully accept that the Council has the right to transfer workers to other locations, having regard to business needs. In this case, the Worker submits that he was redeployed without any meaningful engagement, and that in his view he was unfairly selected for transfer in circumstances when other workers were available to carry out the role.

In the circumstances of this case, the Court does not believe that an award of compensation is appropriate remedy to the grievance raised by the Worker. In this regard, the Court notes that from the outset the Worker’s sole aim has been to return to his original base. The Court was advised that the Worker has submitted a formal transfer request to return to his original location, which is currently being progressed through normal channels. Having regard to the specific circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the Council explore options to facilitate the Worker’s request to return to his original location as soon as practically possible, having regard to the needs of the business.

The Court finds that the Council’s appeal is upheld, and the recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Katie Connolly
CO'R ______________________
5 October 2022 Deputy Chairman


NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.