FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CORK CITY PARTNERSHIP LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY EDMUND SMITH) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Failure by the Company to utilise and implement its own Grievance Procedure in processing my grievance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker is employed by Cork City Partnership (CCP) since 1996 and works with three others in the Programme Development Section (PDS) of the Local Employment Service (LES) which is funded by FÁS. The PDS also delivered the 'Sunbeam Job Club' whereby clients could avail of tuition, training and advice in order to gain experience and be more suited for the job market. As there was in FÁS's view an insufficient number of clients progressing to futher education or employment, FÁS decided to discontinue funding the 'Sunbeam Job Club' in December 2004. The genesis of this grievance arises from the failure of the Employer to protect the Worker from the implied criticism from FÁS as she contends that if it was left unchallenged it could be detrimental to her professional reputation.
On the 25th August, 2008, the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th April, 2009.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The statement of the FÁS Community Manager suggests that the 'Sunbeam Job Club' facilators were not meeting the needs of their clients. This was seen by all of the Programme Development Section staff as a serious attack on their professional reputations.
2. The Worker disagrees with the analysis of Management which she has proven was statistically inaccurate and now requests the new CEO to appeal the decision.
3. The Worker has won an appeal which she brought on a personal level through the internal grievance procedure and received the maximum award possible.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The criteria for the operation of the Job Club were provided by FÁS and it was clear that failure would jeopardise its funding.
2. The removal of the funding was justifiable in all of the circumstances and in particular in light of the FÁS review in late 2004.
3. The Worker's long term career prospects and her earning potential have not been damaged by the Employer's decision not to appeal to FÁS to reverse their decision to end the funding of the 'Sunbeam Job Club'.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the Claimant's grievance be submitted to binding arbitration by an independent person.
Following acceptance of this Recommendation the Court will nominate a suitable person. The costs associated with this investigation should be met by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th May, 2009______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.