FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : INCORPORATED ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL OF IRELAND T/A CLONTARF HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - NICOLA DELANEY (REPRESENTED BY INMO) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00000053.
BACKGROUND:
2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation. On the 6 October 2015. The Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
I, therefore, recommend that the respondent pay the complainant €10,000 as compensation
DECISION:
The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The parties have outlined a period of engagement between the Claimant and management of the Respondent commencing in April 2014 and continuing through to May 2015 relating to issues as regards the operation of Swan Ward and more particularly issues of concern to the Claimant as regards clinical governance and patient safety.
The parties are agreed that various developments in regard to these matters took place throughout the period including the conduct of a Nursing Workforce Review, changes to staffing arrangements and developments in medical support arrangements.
The Claimant raised a grievance in May 2015 and the parties, having arranged and attended a meeting in relation to this grievance, did not find it possible to conduct a meeting in relation to this matter. The Court notes with concern the fact that at no time since the failed grievance meeting have the parties found it possible to process the grievance of the claimant in the manner prescribed by their agreed arrangements.
The Court has been presented with conflicting accounts of various interactions between the Claimant and / or her representative and her manager and other representatives of the Respondent. Such inconsistencies are deeply unhelpful.
The case presented to the Court by the Claimant is, in essence, that the Respondent disadvantaged or treated unreasonably the Claimant by transferring her from Swan Ward to Blackheath Ward. Both wards are located on the same premises. The Respondent submitted to the Court that the transfer of the Claimant was in accord with the terms of her contract and represented an attempt by the Respondent to most appropriately deploy resources by reference to skill and experience of staff and in order to optimise the functioning of the Hospital.
The parties are agreed that the claimant’s experience was heavily weighted towards orthopaedic care which is the speciality of Blackheath Ward. The parties are also agreed that the Claimant’s terms and conditions of employment were unaffected by the transfer to Blackheath Ward and in particular that the Claimant suffered no loss of earnings or alteration in her working hours arising from the transfer.
The Court accepts that the Claimant’s contract of employment explicitly details her liability to be deployed flexibly by the Respondent. The Court cannot find that the Respondent acted improperly or unreasonably in exercising the terms of the Claimant’s Contract or that the Respondent in any way disadvantaged the Claimant by transferring her in circumstances which did not affect her terms and conditions of employment.
The Court regards the fact of the Claimant’s dissatisfaction with matters as they unfolded as being understandable and largely related to the ineffective nature of the parties’ interactions with each other throughout the period. The Court can only ascribe the lack of consistency of view between the parties as regards the facts of the matter as deriving from persistent misunderstanding between them.
In all of the circumstances the Court recommends that the Respondent should recognise the impact of the history of the parties’ engagement on these matters on the Claimant and should, in the interest of good industrial relations, make a payment to the Claimant of €1,500 in resolution of the matter. To that degree the decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
LS______________________
26 July 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.