FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN BORD ALTRANIS - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of a Right Commissioner’s Recommendation r-118991-ir-11/-RG
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant began working for the NCNM in November 2001. In 2011 the Government decided to wind up the NCNM and transfer its functions and staff to An Bord Altranais. Some staff wished to remain working within the HSE and efforts were made to accommodate their preferences. The Claimant's preference was to remain working in the HSE. She said there was a lack of detailed consultation regarding her proposed redeployment which she was unable to resolve over a five month period. The Employer held talks with the Unions in July 2011 where the options were outlined. The Claimant was not a member of a Union and was kept informed of progress by the CEO. The Claimant maintains that a number of developments occurred that undermined her personal and professional standing and left her with no option but to enter into dispute with her employer and process a grievance to a third party.
This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 27th July 2012 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-- “On the basis of the evidence I find and recommend as follows:
It is clear from the evidence from both parties that there was a breakdown in communication with the Claimant. Some of this may be explained as the NCNM was being wound up and staff were being transferred to jobs in the HSE and An Bord Altranis commensurate with their job skills. The lease on the NCNM premises also expired in September 2011.
The most serious aspect of the Claimant’s complaint relates to her forged signature on a Contract of Employment. This is inexcusable and the Claimant should be issued with an immediate written apology.
Both parties confirmed at the Hearing that working relationships between the Claimant and An Bord Altranis are excellent and this is to be commended”.
- “On the basis of the evidence I find and recommend as follows:
On the 29th August 2012 the Claimant appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd April 2013.
WORKER’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Staff meetings regarding the winding up of the NCNM and the consequent redeployment of staff were very general. No formal detailed discussions took place regarding the employment options that were available to staff.
2. The Claimant was subjected to unnecessary stress, anxiety and a lack of consideration by her Employers.
3. The Claimant's personal and professional standing were undermined during this process.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer held a meeting with the Claimant on the 23rd August 2011 to discuss redeployment options available to her in the HSE.
2. That offer was made in good faith, but it later transpired that the section the Claimant was to move to outsourced its work and the position ceased to exist. This was explained to the Claimant at a further meeting.
3. The Claimant was at all times aware that her employment was secure and protected under statute.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this appeal.
The Court concurs with the findings of the Rights Commissioner but concludes that the Claimant should be compensated for the substantial wrongs she has suffered. The Court takes the view that compensation in the sum of €10,000 is fair and reasonable in the unique circumstances of this case.
The Rights Commissioner’s Decision is varied accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
11th April, 2013.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.