A State workplace watchdog has dismissed as not credible a council inspector's claim that additional duties to scan and 'idoc' documents would have left her exhausted and feeling stressed.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudicator Breiffni O’Neill dismissed the worker’s Industrial Relations Act claim that a council’s verbal warning issued to her for her refusal to carry out the additional duties should be overturned.
In his findings, Mr O’Neill stated: "I am at a loss to understand how these additional duties, which would have taken no more than a few minutes per day, could have caused her considerable stress or exhaustion".
Mr O’Neill also stated that he did not consider the assertion by the worker that they would do so to be credible, "especially when she was given the opportunity but declined to be trained in these new tasks".
Mr O’Neill found that the verbal warning issued to the worker "arising from her refusal to accept a minimal level of change in her duties following a restructure was a fair and reasonable sanction and that her failure to perform these additional duties was wholly unreasonable".
Mr O’Neill also found that the handling of the grievance by the employer was in line with standard practice.
The worker was supported in her claim by the country's largest public service unions, Fórsa.
A Fórsa representative told the WRC hearing that the employer "showed no duty of care to the worker" and highlighted that "she should have been referred to occupational health as a result of the stress caused to her by these proposed changes".
Following the worker’s move to a new consolidated unit staffed from existing human resources personnel, she stated that management attempted to impose additional duties upon her, namely scanning and idoccing documents for a few minutes each day, which had not been agreed with her union.
She stated that these proposed changes were very stressful and would have caused her exhaustion.
Following the move to the new unit, the council worker was requested by her immediate line manager to scan and idoc all correspondence with tenants to the relevant accounts.
On 6 November 2020, when directed by her line manager to carry out the above tasks, the worker refused on the basis that these tasks were not previously carried out by her.
The worker was advised on 28 January 2021 that the task at issue did not constitute an unreasonable request and should be complied with as it fell fully within the normal scope of duties for her grade.
On 9 February 2021, an informal meeting was held between local management and the worker regarding her continued refusal to scan/idoc documents.
On 11 February 2021, the worker was asked to review her continuing refusal to scan documents and revert to local management by close of business on 16 February 2021.
The worker was warned of disciplinary action if she continued to refuse to scan documents.
The worker failed to carry out the required tasks and on 30 April 2021 local management initiated disciplinary action over her refusal to scan documents.
The council stated that at the disciplinary hearing, the worker did not dispute the fact that she had refused to carry out the instruction to scan the documents as requested.
A verbal warning was issued to the worker on 18 May 2021 on the grounds that she was failing to carry out her assigned duties.
On 26 May 2021, the worker appealed the verbal warning to the next level of local management and the verbal warning was upheld.
Arising from this, the worker submitted a grievance on 17 September 2021 in relation to the fairness and impartiality of the disciplinary process.
However, the worker’s line manager issued a finding that the process was fully in line with the council’s disciplinary policy and procedure.
The worker then appealed the grievance decision to the relevent administrative officer and a response was issued on 20 October 2021 confirming that the employer’s policy and procedure was complied with in the case.
