FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ABN AMRO BANK N.V. (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX SOLICITORS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY O'MARA GERAGHTY MC COURT SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim for greater recognition of performance and corrected rating for 1 year.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker joined the Bank in 1981. He is currently Business Unit Head and Head of Finance for the Dublin branch of the Bank. Every year, in common with other employees of the Bank, he is subjected to an annual Appraisal Review. Up until 2004 the worker was always found to have performed above requirements and this was reflected in his bonus.
Following his appraisal in 2004 the worker received a 2.4 rating rounded down to 2. The worker did not accept this rating and sought to resolve the matter. He subsequently invoked the Bank’s Grievance procedure. Following this review the performance rating of 2, as previously awarded, was upheld on the basis that a valid assessment of his performance had taken place.
The issue could not be resolved at local level. The worker referred his claim to the Labour Court on the 14th November, 2005, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd February, 2006.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Appraisal was based solely on the original CFO objectives and was not amended to reflect the worker's secondment.
2. Following an initial review the appraisal rating of 2.4 was amended to 2.6. The overall rating of 2, however, did not change.
3. The Appraisal Review was not conducted as it had been in previous years and departed from the Bank's own guidelines.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker's Appraisal Review for the year January 1st to December 31st 2004 was carried out by the Chief Financial Officer for Europe, Middle East and Africa in accordance with all normal procedures.
2. The Appraisal Review uses a rating scale to assess the extent to which the appraisee has met the expected level of performance. Based on this scale the worker was given a 2 rating.
3. The Bank feels that it has treated the Worker in a fair and consistent manner and that he does not have a valid grievance in relation to the appraisal in question.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered the submissions, written and oral, of the parties.
Noting: a) the high regard in which the claimant is held by his Employers
b) his lengthy record of continued success prior to the 2004 assessment
c) the level and intensity of the additional high-priority compliance work which he was asked to undertake in 2004 in addition to his core duties as CFO and
d) the definitions of the ratings
the Court feels that he was unfairly treated in being awarded a performance rating of 2 for that year.
The Court recommends that the Claimant's rating for 2004 be revised to a 3, on a personal to holder basis without precedent, and that he should receive the bonus payment appropriate to that rating for 2004.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
8th February, 2006______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.