A long-serving employee claims an unconsulted redeployment was an informal disciplinary sanction, while the employer insists it was routine operational management. This case highlights how unclear processes and missing documentation can escalate disputes.

The Complainant stated that he had been employed by the local authority for approximately three decades, most of that time as a greenskeeper at the municipal golf course. He asserted that, in December 2022, he was called to a meeting that bore the hallmarks of a disciplinary interview, despite never receiving written allegations, an investigation report, or any formal finding. He contended that immediately after this meeting he was unilaterally transferred to a city depot position without consultation or explanation. According to the Complainant,  this redeployment amounted to an informal disciplinary sanction imposed without due process or natural justice. He argued that the move damaged his reputation, caused unnecessary distress, and deprived him of overtime and professional standing associated with his established role. He had consistently sought reinstatement and modest compensation for the procedural failures that, in his view, tainted the entire process and left him unfairly treated.

The Respondent accepted that the worker had been redeployed following complaints but maintained that no disciplinary sanction had ever been imposed. It stated that pay, grade, and core contractual entitlements had been fully protected and that the redeployment constituted a routine operational decision (within management’s prerogative). They noted that the individuals involved at the time had since left the organisation and that records of the original process were incomplete or unavailable. While acknowledging gaps in documentation, they argued that the transfer had not been intended as punitive, nor had it resulted in financial loss. It further submitted that local authorities held broad discretion to assign employees to different sites based on service needs. They further indicated that although it could not fully reconstruct the rationale for the 2022 decision, it believed the Complainant had not been disadvantaged.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the employer failed to produce any record of investigation, complaint particulars, or disciplinary process linked to the redeployment. The evidence demonstrated they had not been afforded fair procedures, natural justice, or consultation prior to the transfer. The Adjudicator determined that the redeployment flowed directly from unproven allegations and could not therefore be characterised as a legitimate or neutral operational reassignment. While the Adjudicator accepted that there had been no loss of basic earnings or grade, it was held that the Complainant nonetheless experienced unfair and unreasonable treatment. The Adjudicator noted that another individual was acting in the Complainant’s former position, and that the Local Authority advanced no convincing operational reason why they could not return to that role. In light of these findings, the Adjudicator concluded that reinstatement and €3000 redress were necessary and proportionate.

Employers should ensure that any movement arising from complaints is managed through a clear and documented process. First, all allegations should be put to the employee in writing, with adequate detail to allow a meaningful response. Second, no redeployment should occur until a preliminary investigation is completed and the employee has had the opportunity to participate fully. Third, employers should retain full records to ensure accountability and organisational continuity, particularly where personnel change over time. If redeployment is required for genuine operational reasons, consultation is essential. Employers should explain the rationale, consider alternatives, and document the employee’s input. Finally, delays in responding to grievances or reviewing disputed decisions can themselves become a procedural defect.

The full case can be found here.