ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003907
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | An Assistant Manager | Health Service Provider |
Representatives | Self | General Manager |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00003907 | 05/03/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 07/08/2025 and 14/10/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
As this is a trade dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 the hearing took place in private, and the parties are not named. The parties are referred to as “the Worker” and “the Employer”. Section 13(9)(c) of the Act provides that hearings shall be heard in private and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The Worker’s complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 05/03/2025. The Employer was notified of the Worker’s complaint by letter dated 12/03/2025 and notified of their right under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, to object to an investigation of the dispute by an Adjudication Officer within21 days. The Employer was informed that failure to reply within the period specified will be regarded as consent to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and the dispute proceeded to hearing.
I am satisfied that no objection to the investigation of this dispute by an Adjudication Officer was received by the Workplace Relations Commission from the Employer.
The Worker attended the hearing, and represented himself. The Employer was represented by a General Manager and one other representative from the Employer.
I explained to both parties at the outset the way the hearing would proceed, and I clarified for the parties the role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations dispute. I clarified that it is a voluntary process and that no formal evidence is taken. In that context there are no findings of fact made. I also clarified there were no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this specific referral. I explained to the parties that I would be seeking information during the hearing in order to gain an understanding of the full extent of the issues giving rise to this dispute. At the end of the hearing both parties confirmed that they were satisfied that they were given an adequate opportunity to provide the hearing with all their relevant information.
Background:
The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 01/10/2001. He worked in a welfare officer role in Service “A”. On 02/07/2018 the Worker transferred to another area (Service “B”) within the wider service. His new role was that of an assistant manager. The budget covering his salary was to be transferred along with the relevant reporting arrangements. Despite the Worker’s efforts to have his position regularised the Employer has not done so. The matter was referred to the WRC on 05/03/2025 and a hearing took place on 07/08/2025. During that hearing it transpired that the relevant decision makers from Service B were required and the hearing was adjourned to invite the relevant representatives attend a further hearing. A further hearing was scheduled for 14/10/2024 and all the relevant parties notified. On 13/10/2025 the representative from Service B contacted the WRC to indicate that she would not be attending the hearing and cited work commitments. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker outlined that he transferred to Service B on 02/07/2018 and his new role was that of assistant manager which he continues to hold to date. The Worker believed that in order to regularise his transfer he would be issued with a contract, terms and conditions and other administrative processes in order to complete this process. The Worker is clear that at no stage was this transfer considered a secondment. Since his transfer he has experienced frustration with issues such as applying for annual leave which still had to be approved in Service A The Worker provided the hearing with copies of the many attempts made by him and his trade union to have this matter resolved. No progress was made and the Worker experienced what he described as “a lack of engagement and further misdirection”. The Worker is anxious to have his transfer confirmed as his salary, leave and other terms and conditions remain within the Service A area. The Worker submits that the delay in completing the transfer is unreasonable and it is not in order that the ambiguity continues. The Worker is also frustrated at the regularisation stalled due to inter agency wrangling. The Worker also submits that this delay has consequences for future promotional, pension and remuneration and is punitive in its effect. The Worker is seeking a reasonable solution to this dispute and confirms that none of this is due in any way to any action or lack of action on his part. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer accepts that the Worker transferred from Service A to Service B on 02/07/2018. This transfer was on a grade for grade basis. The Employer also accepts that the Worker transferred on the same terms and conditions that he held. The Employer submits that the transfer should have been progressed by Service B and progressed through their payroll. There were no budget requests for a transfer. There was an attempt to transfer but this failed due to a lack of information and Service B “being unable to fulfil their obligation in relation to the transfer”. The Employer provided the hearing with a detailed timeline accompanied by 36 appendices. The Employer does not dispute that there is a financial element to complete the transfer and this must be initiated by the budget holder, Service A. At the hearing a representative for the Employer undertook to link with the relevant parties to have this matter finalised within three weeks of the date of the hearing. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
This dispute has now been ongoing for over seven years and concerns the completion of a transfer process for an Worker from one service to another. The process requires the transfer of the relevant budget to enable all remaining administrative and contractual elements of the transfer to be finalised. Despite repeated efforts by the Worker to progress the matter, the process has remained incomplete for an inordinate length of time. It is extraordinary that a matter of this nature has remained unresolved for such a prolonged period. The Worker’s ongoing efforts to secure completion of the transfer demonstrate how disjointed service structures and lack of coordination between departments can have a significant and adverse impact on an individual Worker. Of particular concern is the refusal of a senior manager, within a publicly funded organisation, to engage with the Workplace Relations Commission in the course of this dispute. The reason advanced — that the manager was “busy at work” — does not constitute a cogent or acceptable explanation for failing to participate in a process designed to resolve employment-related issues. This lack of engagement is wholly inappropriate and inconsistent with the obligations of a public service Employer and particularly where no objection under Section 36(1) to the investigation was received. In view of the commitment made at the hearing, I recommend that: (1) Both services involved in this matter engage immediately with the General Manager to ensure that the Worker’s transfer process is fully completed within three weeks of the hearing date (i.e. by 4 November 2025).
(2) The Employer organisation make an ex-gratia payment of €7,000 to the Worker in recognition of the significant delay and the detrimental effects experienced as a result of the protracted process. This matter has persisted far beyond any reasonable timeframe for resolution. It is imperative that both services now act without further delay to bring closure to this issue and to ensure that lessons are learned regarding inter-service coordination and accountability. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that:
- (1) Both services involved in this matter engage immediately with the General Manager to ensure that the Worker’s transfer process is fully completed within three weeks of the hearing date (i.e. by 4 November 2025).
- (2) The Employer organisation make an ex-gratia payment of €7,000 to the Worker in recognition of the significant delay and the detrimental effects experienced as a result of the protracted process. This amount to be paid as soon as practicable.
Dated: 29-10-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Lack of engagement. Dispute resolution. |