FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - IRISH RAIL - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-153876-ir-15/JOC
BACKGROUND:
2. This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal referred by Iarnr�d Éireann (hereafter ‘the Respondent’) against a recommendation of a Rights Commissioner dated 21 August 2015. The Rights Commissioner had found that the transfer of the Complainant from his substantive management position on 12 August 2013 was “an unwarranted sanction of a disciplinary nature.” The Rights Commissioner accordingly recommended that the Respondent should reinstate the Complainant in his former position. On the 17th September 2015 the employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 17th November 2015.
Respondent’s Submission
The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had retained his substantive salary and terms and conditions in the role to which he had been seconded in 2013. The seconded role was technically demanding but the Complainant had been effective and successful in it. The Respondent further submitted that the secondment had been intended to be of a temporary nature and that the Complainant had been advised of a number of alternative roles which were open from time to time and which, in the Respondent’s view, would have been a good match for his skill set. However, the Complainant, it alleged, had failed or refused to engage with Human Resources in relation to any of those alternative positions.
Complainant’s Submission
The Complainant submitted that the position to which he had been transferred in August 2013 was equivalent to a position he had held in 2008 and from which he had received a number of promotions. He accepted that his salary and terms and conditions had not been diminished following his transfer, however, in his view, the substantive salary which attached to the position he had been transferred from in 2013 was some 40% higher than the maximum of the scale which applied to his seconded position. Furthermore, in his seconded position he had no responsibility for the management of staff and no budget to manage, whereas in his substantive role he managed 30 staff and had a budget of approximately €7 million. His substantive position, he submitted, was a senior management role; the position to which he had been seconded, in his view, was a technical role and not a management role at all.
DECISION:
Having given detailed consideration to the parties’ detailed written and oral submissions, the Court finds that the Complainant has been seconded for an extended period to an inappropriate position, having regard to his prior experience and established track record with the Respondent.
The Court recommends that both parties should immediately engage fully and openly with one another to identify, in the short term, an alternative management position for the Complainant which is genuinely commensurate with his skill set and his experience.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
3rd December 2015______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.