The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 13th of May 1991 and at all times the Complainant’’s role was described as “Social Worker”.  The Complainant alleged that she had been unfairly forced to change her place of work without her consent.  However, the Respondent stated that the move arose from clinical necessity and was permissible under the Complainant’s contractual terms.

The Respondent is involved in the provision of mental health services to the public at two separate sites within the same metropolitan area. The Complainant had worked exclusively at one of those sites for over 19 years.  In 2019, without any prior notice or engagement, the Complainant was informed that she would be transferred to the other site.  The work at this site involved providing services to a different cohort of the public and was over 11 kilometres further away from the site where the Complainant had previously been stationed.

The Complainant attempted to engage with the Employer’s HR department to resolve the issue. While a representative from HR did meet with the Complainant, the meeting was not constructive. During this meeting, the HR representative stated that the Complainant's terms and conditions permitted the transfer between sites. As the Complainant was concerned about a potential disciplinary sanction, she moved under protest in September 2019. The Complainant made a referral to the WRC under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969.

The Respondent submitted that staff frequently moved between the sites depending on the clinical requirements of the organisation.  The decision to relocate the Complainant to the other site arose from such a requirement. The Respondent submitted further that the Head of Social Work met with the Complainant on three separate occasions to discuss the rationale for the relocation. Ultimately, the Respondent claimed that something of an agreement was reached, where the Complainant agreed to relocate under protest pending the referral of the present complaint.

The Adjudication Officer stated that the proposed relocation to another site, whilst potentially necessary for clinical reasons, would represent a significant alteration to the Complainant’s working patterns and would understandably constitute a legitimate source of concern for the Complainant. The Adjudication Officer noted that in effect the re-location had already been decided upon and to all intents and purposes the Worker’s input of consultation was not sought during the decision-making process.   The Adjudication Officer noted that it was apparent that the Respondent did not resile from this position but simply re-stated the outcome. In this regard, the location of employment is a core term of employment for a Complainant and to unilaterally decide to change the same without any form of consultation cannot be said to be reasonable in the circumstances. Accordingly, the Adjudication Officer recommended that the Respondent pay the Complainant the sum of €5,000 in compensation.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/march/adj-00027212.html

Relocation can be a tricky matter for employers as this and another recent case has shown:
Cosy Tots & Co. Ltd V Bernadette Conn [2021]