ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001673
Dispute for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 |
CA-00002303-001 |
01/02/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/06/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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 by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background
The respondent operates a number of health services facilities in a large hospital and in a range of community settings..
In 2013 it introduced a system of rotation whereby staff would move on an approximately three year cycle in order to keep the various relationships fresh and to expose employees to a variety of settings.
The complainant was initially employed on a full time basis in January 2001 at the main hospital in the service. Subsequently she applied for a post at one of the community settings and at her own request reduced her hours to part time at twenty hours per week. She continued to work there until her rotation in September 2014.
The complainant was advised that she would be transferring in August 2014, although the destination was not specified until August 27th and she transferred in September 2014.
Shortly after that she made known her dissatisfaction with the move and began a process which has culminated in this hearing.
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The complainant’s case is that having gone through a selection process and having been appointed to the community based facility she had a right and a preference to be left there.
She says that no account was taken her twelve years service or the fact that her performance had been positively acknowledged by her line managers throughout the years.
She feels that there is no valid reason that she should have been removed from her position.
She has had an adverse reaction to the transfer and had experienced a period of sick leave from which she has now recovered.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
By way of a preliminary point the respondent questioned whether the complaint was within the time limits required. The event complained of took place in September 2014.
As a matter of policy the respondent says that in general, it favours rotation within the services. This has benefits for both employees and the organisation. It prevents an employee becoming ‘static’ or too connected to a particular role or setting. It also provides the employee with an opportunity to work in different locations and gain wider experience.
It can see no basis for making an exception in the case of the complainant.
There are no extenuating circumstances which can justify her exclusion from the operation of the general policy.
Findings and Conclusions
It is clear that in general the policy of rotation is accepted by employees of the respondent and I accept and fully endorse the operational and HR benefits of such a policy, notably given the particular range of services provided by the respondent.
It is hard to see how the respondent could manage the system if individual employees were to effectively exercise a veto over proposed acts of transfer. This would threaten the benefits for the service and its users which are self evident.
Following consultation with the parties a compromise was reached which ensures that the principle of rotation as operated by the respondent remains intact and is fully accepted by the complainant and her union.
I have expressed this in the recommendation which follows and which has been accepted by both parties.
Recommendation:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I recommend as follows;
- That the complainant unconditionally accept the principle of rotation and agrees to co-operate with it in the future.
- Without prejudice to this commitment the respondent agrees that on her next rotation, which is accepted as being due in April 2017 the complainant will transfer to her previous community base where she will pass a normal rotation ‘shift’ of approximately three years.
- Any future rotation of the complainant will be strictly in accordance with the respondent’s rotation scheme.
- The terms of this agreement are confidential to the parties and any breach of the terms thereof by either party may result in the other withdrawing from the commitments made herein and this agreement being set aside.
Dated 13th July 2016