FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation IR13806/03/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue involves a claim by a sub officer in Dublin firebrigade who was a candidate for promotion to station officer. He claims that his original assessment form completed by his immediate superior, which he signed, was subsequently altered to his disadvantage and without his knowledge. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 29th January, 2004, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
- “To alter the form without the knowledge or consent of the claimant was a serious breach of ethical procedure.
- I recommend that the panel be extended to accommodate the claimant in such a way as to not interfere with the seniority rights of any other individuals”.
- On the 4th March, 2004 the Dublin City Council appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th April, 2004.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL’S ARGUMENTS
3.1 Given the complexity of the case and the serious questions which it raised, the Council felt that an independent investigation was warranted. A retired County Manager was invited to carry out this investigation. 2. The matter was fully investigated by the independent investigator who, while recognising discrepancies in the process attached a degree of culpability to the worker. 3. The Report concluded that the worker had ample time to query the marks awarded under the category in question, as he was notified two weeks prior to interview. 4. The Rights Commissioner’s decision failed to take this aspect into account and the Council is of the view that the proposed remedy is excessive.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS
2.1 The workers assessment result was interfered with without his knowledge or consent. This interference clearly contradicts the protocol for such assessment “Assessment by superior officers – this is carried out by an agreement pro-forma and allows for each officer to make a written comment. These forms are finally signed by the candidate to state that he has seen the contents.No alterations are permitted after the candidate has signed”.
2. The worker was disadvantaged by the amended result which in effect meant he had 7 points less than in his original assessment. This resulted in him not making the promotional panel to Station Officer and consequently the financial loss to him.
3. The Rights Commissioner’s findings were reasonable and would have meant the least amount of disruption to other members of the panel and other consequential promotional candidates.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is in full agreement with the conclusions reached by the Right's Commissioner in this case. Accordingly the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is affirmed and the appealed is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd April, 2004______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.