Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Electronic Worker

A Public Health Service

Representatives

Mark O'Malley

Paul Hume

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00002769

21/06/2024

On 21 June 2024, the Union referred a Dispute for investigation on behalf of their member, a long-term employee of a Public Health Service.

On 28 June 2024, the Employer confirmed agreement to participating in the proposed Investigation of the Dispute.

On 16 October 2024, in advance of the scheduled hearing on October 22, 2024. I wrote to each party seeking a written submission to capture the chronology of the case.

Both Parties submitted the requested submissions.

The hearing in this case was conducted as a remote hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 31 Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020, as amended by section 91 Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023.

I did attempt to resume the hearing on February 14, 2025, but was unable to secure both parties attendance on that day.

The Union has brought a complex dispute to the attention of the WRC in this case. The complaint was lodged against the backdrop of the workers extended sick leave and the Unions very apparent bid to restore the worker back to a workplace where he would find certainty in his job description and psychological safety.

The Worker comes to the case as a long-term employee who has successfully diversified into his present role through enhanced training.

The Worker was regularised in his role of Electronic Technician in 2014 and work commenced on producing an agreed job description. This proved very challenging as there was a clear gulf between legacy practices, what his manager now expected him to do, and the workers own reservations of what was viable.

The Parties tried to agree the job description, relying on cross site norms for guidance but were unsuccessful.

The Union contended that the draft job description carried excessive duties and responsibilities.

The worker began to visibly struggle in trying to undertake the day-to-day job against the uncertainty of the boundaries of his job. He proceeded on certified sick leave in January 2024.

The Worker sought an intervention from the Occupational Health Department, who issued a report in late January 2024. This report recommended that the worker should return to work in a different location to aide his health.

The Union referred to a stated commitment from the Employer to explore the potential for relocation/ redeployment contingent on “the current moratorium on recruitment “.

The Union addressed the query on whether a grievance had been activated by confirming that the worker was deemed unfit to progress a grievance at that time.

Options for redeployment were explored but were not clearly defined.

The Union has come to this case to assist in the workers safe return to follow the Occupational Health Report in full and to actively explore alternatives to his present job.

On the first day of hearing, it became clear that this is very much a stand-alone case and one which the Parties both recognised as being capable of resolution through direct engagement.

The Parties were committed to facilitating the Workers return to work.

I agreed to work with the parties as they sought to navigate that shared objective.

I sought a copy of the Occupational Health Report of January 2024.

The plan was to resume the hearing on 27 November 2024, following that direct engagement. I informed the parties that in the event that they agreed the substantive issue, that I was prepared to make a Recommendation on any residual issues.

The Parties alerted the WRC that a two stage Agreement had been reached in early November 2024, which permitted an opportunity for the worker to return to work on November 18 in an improved work environment followed by an opportunity to laterally transfer to a “comparable role “within the workplace before February 2025.

The Parties sought to pause the Adjudication pending the implementation of this proposal.

I agreed and we resumed first on 14 February 2025 and latterly on 25 March 2025.

  On 25 March 2025, The Union confirmed that the Worker had returned to work on 18 November 2024 and while he has maintained this position, he was still intent on realising a lateral transfer as his preferred outcome. He was very disappointed that this had not been accommodated by the Employer.

The Union once more sought a Recommendation for a way forward in the case.

The Employer operates a Public Health Service.

The Employer outlined that the worker was first employed as a Plumber/ Fitter and commenced acting as an Electrician Technician in December 2009 and regularised as an “Electronics Technician “under the Haddington Road Agreement.

He worked within a variable management structure. In 2022, his current manager highlighted the absence of a specific job description for the role of Electronics Technician, and he sought to remedy this through active engagement, production of draft job descriptions and requests for support.

The Employer confirmed that despite direct engagement with the worker and his Union, the Parties could not agree a job description.

In January 2024, the Employer issued a job description directly to the Worker.

The Worker proceeded on absence through sick leave.

The Employer sought to refer the worker for Occupational Health review but was overtaken by the workers own self-referral. The letter of proposed referral was included in the parties’ papers and scripted by the Maintenance Manager dated 21 August 2024 and contained 16 specific requests for guidance from OHD.

“In order that I can fully support a planned return to work with the benefit of specialist advise, I would encourage you to please sign and return the enclosed to me by the end of August 2024 ….”

The Employer reactivated the request for worker consent to Occupational Health Referral in August 2024.

The matter of the pre -existing Occupational Health report of 29 January 2024 was streamlined to Human resources alone as the worker had vetoed its release to a broader management team. He had relented on this by late September 2024.

The Employer contended that the Worker had raised a number of issues over the last number of years.

1 non-agreement with job description

2 not being suitably qualified for tasks requested of him.

3 Requests for lateral transfer.

The Employer confirmed their ongoing commitment to working towards a resolution in the case but flagged their concern that “goal posts appear to move when we are making progress “.

As already stated, the Parties took some time following the first day of hearing. They reached an intermediate Agreement which facilitated the workers return to work on November 18, 2024, and a firm commitment to scope out a lateral transfer in a comparable role.

By the time the Parties reconvened on March 25, 2025, the Employer tabled some of the efforts made to redeploy the worker to alternative locations. These efforts were hindered by the limitations on the moratorium on staffing and the workers expectation that he could be permitted to laterally transfer to posts which were not comparable, and which would require a competition under equal opportunities.

The Employer contended that the worker had returned to a more inclusive and supported workplace and argued for the workers cooperation in perseverance in the role with associated supports.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

As I stated at the outset, the Union has brought a complex case to the WRC. I say this as they have taken an unusual pathway in coming to the WRC without exhausting the internal disputes resolution mechanism.

I was initially troubled by this as the Labour Court has consistently set down that they expect the internal pathway to have been exhausted prior to referral to third party.

I accept that this case is an exception to that rule as the worker comes to the Dispute with an unchallenged Occupational Health Report dated 30 January 2024, which declares that he was not fit to participate in a formal grievance procedure.

This report placed the worker in a category of needing an urgent intervention in his workplace in the interest of his psychological safety in the face of a “significant risk of further conflict “.

The report recommended a re-deployment in the short term.

I have some concerns on the limitation to circulation placed on this report by the worker that endured to late September 2024. I appreciate this may reflect a climate of low trust.

 However, when balanced by the good faith of the Maintenance Managers bid to seek guidance from Occupational Health during this parallel period, I can’t help but conclude that the parties may have been unwitting casualties of that limitation.

However, the Parties are united now in supporting a safe place of work for the worker and have adopted this approach since my first engagement with them in October 2024.

The Parties both appreciate that there is a long term need to redeploy the worker, however the employer admits facing a barrier through lack of defined opportunity and his coveted redeployments not being within the confines of comparable grades.

For my part, I want to commend both Parties in this case for persevering in seeking to identify and tie down a solution in this case. It is clear that both Parties are seeking to move on from legacy issues.

The Union claimed a manifestation of the OHD Report of January 2024. The Employer has not argued against this outside of setting out the obstacles faced along the way.

Both Parties are commended for achieving a return to work for the worker in November 2024. The objective must now be to extend that process with confidence.

 I accept that the worker is seeking to navigate his way through a challenging workplace as an individual. The Employer has committed to assisting this process.

I have found merit in this Dispute.

A safe workplace with clear job description.