CD/24/6 | RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR22941 |
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 2015
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
(REPRESENTED BY IBEC)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SIPTU)
DIVISION:
Chairman: | Mr Foley |
Employer Member: | Mr O'Brien |
Worker Member: | Ms Treacy |
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00045420 (CA-00056267-SC-00001311)
BACKGROUND:
The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 5 January 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
On 28 November 2023 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:
“I recommend in favour of the Worker. In this regard, I recommend that the additional consequences arising from the disciplinary procedures i.e. the PIP and the unilateral relocation, be discontinued. In the alternative, I recommend that the parties meet within two weeks of the date below and discuss the Worker’s return to work in a constructive manner. This may include relocation, however the same must be with the Worker’s consent. In addition to the foregoing, I recommend that the parties engage the services of a mediator to meet with the Worker, her line manager and any other relevant party.
I further recommend that the sanction imposed be reduced to a written warning and should be deemed to have expired by the date below. Finally, I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €2,500 in compensation, primarily for the difficulties arising from the delays in the process.”
A Labour Court hearing took place on 6 March 2024.
RECOMMENDATION:
This matter comes before the Court as an appeal by the employer of a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer in a trade dispute between a worker and her employer.
The trade dispute occurred in a small employment location where five or six people are employed in the provision of health and social care to a range of service users. The employer operates a number of such locations engaged in the delivery of such services.
It appears that allegations as regards the behaviour of the worker led to an investigation procedure where two or three (the parties can’t agree on the facts of this element) of the worker’s colleagues contributed to the investigation in support of the allegations against the worker.
Ultimately, that procedure resulted in a reduction of sanctions imposed on the worker and a compensatory payment to recognise delays in process being recommended by the Adjudication Officer. The Adjudication Officer also recommended that a Performance Improvement Programme be discontinued, and that any relocation of the worker be discontinued also.
The employer, at the hearing of the Court, submitted that it would be prepared to accept the bulk of the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer but could not accept that a proposal to assign the worker to a different work location not be implemented.
The employer submitted that relationships in the small work location where the events occurred had been affected to the degree that it was likely further issues could, through no fault of the worker or her colleagues, emerge were the worker assigned to work in that location again. The employer submitted that its position in this respect was reflective of its obligation to endeavour to foster good employment relations and was not in any sense a penalty or sanction upon the worker.
The worker submitted that she did not in principle object to working in an alternative location but perceived that any agreement on her part to do so could be seen as a sanction imposed upon her as a result of the wishes or views of her work colleagues.
It is the Court’s firm view that good industrial and employment relations can occur only against a background of the exercise of pragmatism, realism and common sense by all involved in those relationships.
It is apparent that a set of events occurred in this small work location and that the risk of consequential poor relations between colleagues is enhanced by the occurrence of those events.
The worker has not worked in the location for some considerable period of time, and it is not disputed that the assignment of a work location to a worker is within the responsibility of the employer according to the contract of employment.
In all the circumstances, the Court decides that the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer be accepted with the exception that the worker should, in the interest of good industrial and employment relations, be assigned to work in another work location. That assignment should be decided upon following appropriate consultation with the worker and with due regard to her desire to advance her career as expressed at the hearing of the Court. The Court’s decision is made against the background that no element of sanction applies to the decision as to the worker’s work location.
The Recommendation of the Adjudication officer is varied to the extent set out above.
The Court so decides.
![]() | Signed on behalf of the Labour Court |
![]() | |
![]() | Kevin Foley |
CC | ______________________ |
14 March 2024 | Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.