FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CENTRAL BANK & FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY OF IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal Of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-049098-Ir-06/Di
BACKGROUND:
2. In October of 2005 the Claimant submitted an application for regrading. He was unsuccessful in this application. The Claimant's manager, who was on the review panel, had indicated to the Claimant his intention not to participate in any review. In May 2006 a meeting between Management and the Claimant was held to clarify issues raised about the review process by the Claimant. He was informed among other things, that his manager did not support the application and regrading from the Claimants grade, P3 to the grade P2 only occurred under exceptional circumstances. It is the Claimants case that the decision on his regrading was not based on the merit of his application but the prejudice of his manager towards that method of promotion. The claimant contends that his manager is denying not just him but his whole department opportunities the Company they work for has made available to them, purely out of his own prejudices.
The matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 24th November, 2006 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"Having carefully considered the submissions made by the parties, I am satisfied that, while there may have been aspects of the regrading application process that could possibly have been dealt with differently, the claimant was dealt with in a fair manner. While I understand the Claimants grievance at what he perceived to be a lack of support from his line manager, I do not find that his line manager acted either improperly or in a discriminatory manner against the Claimant. I find against the complainants claim that his job should be regraded."
On the 2nd April, 2007 the worker 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 13th July, 2007
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The opportunity to go through the process properly was denied the Claimant. The Claimant's manager refused to allow him to apply for regrading and refused to review his application at the review panel. He then refused to supply feedback. Nowhere in the published criteria for regrading does it say you need your manager's support.
2 The Claimants manager is refusing to allow the policy of regrading into his department purely out of his own personal prejudices towards the methods of promotion he makes available to the staff in his department. The Claimant believes he is being discriminated against in the matter of his application and the processing of his application for regrading.
3 The Claimant has endured over 2 years of struggle, stress, worry, missed promotion opportunities and indeed feels future promotion prospects have been lessened considerably.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company's procedural guidelines for 'Regrading on a Personal Level' establish that a candidate would have to be performing at a significantly higher level than his current grade to warrant regrading. Management did not think the Claimant met the published criteria for regrading.
2 Regrading on a Personal basis only applies in circumstances not captured by the General Competitive System. The vacancy at P2 grade for which he was applying was included in a competition for which he and other colleagues at his grade were competing.
3 The Company dealt with the Claimants grievance in a structured manner. He had access to management and senior staff in Human Resources and Planning Department. The head of this Department considered the Claimant's and a senior member of the Management Board met with the Claimant and reviewed the case.
DECISION:
It is apparent to the Court that there may be a degree of inconsistency in the manner in which the system of personal applications for regrading is applied within the Bank. The Court is further concerned at the failure of the Manager in question to provide the Claimant with feedback on his application for regrading. Both matters should be addressed by the Bank.
Nonetheless, the Court is satisfied that the conclusions reached by the Rights Commissioner are reasonable and supported by the facts of the case. In these circumstances the Court cannot see any basis upon which it could disagree with the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. Accordingly the Recommendation is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th July, 2007______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.