AD1340

On the 20th November 2012 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 18th April 2013.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Appellant was never advised of any aspect of her work that was below par or required any remedial attention. She should receive the benefit of her increment with effect from its due date without further delay.

2. If during the review process it was considered that she was underachieving in her work performanceit is reasonable to expect that the support to reach therequiredstandard be made available to her by the Council.

COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The decision to award annual incremental credit is contingent on a staff member obtaining a satisfactory level of attendance, conduct and performance. Whilst the Appellant may be unhappy with the outcome of the process, fair and reasonable procedures were applied.

2. The Council has already provided the Apellant with development assistance and will continue to arrange for any essential training/development identified for her specific post.

DECISION:

The matter before the Court concerns the Worker’s appeal of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation concerning the withholding of an annual increment in March 2011. The Rights Commissioner held that in return for her agreement and co-operation to improve her performance the withheld increment should be restored on a deferred basis from November 2012. The Union on behalf of the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.

The Appellant has been employed as an Executive Planner with the County Council since April 2003. Her performance reviews since 2007 have indicated that her performance is not satisfactory and consequently increments have been withheld or deferred. The Appellant has refused to attend performance meetings with the result that in October 2011 the review took place over the phone. She was informed that as her performance for the previous twelve months was unsatisfactory she did not warrant payment of an increment. The Appellant did not appeal that decision, however, a claim was referred to a Rights Commissioner for payment of the annual increment from its due date in March 2011.

The Union on behalf of the Appellant stated that the Appellant had not been advised of any aspect of her work which required remedial attention.

Management stated that specific examples of poor performance were given to the Appellant throughout the year, regular meetings were held concerning her poor work performance and assistance and support were offered to her.

The Court accepts the County Council’s view that the awarding of annual incremental credit is contingent on a staff member obtaining satisfactory levels of attendance, conduct and performance.

Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties the Court notes that the Appellant is an experienced professional executive with many years’ experience with “a good knowledge of theory and techniques of planning” and therefore should be competent to carry out her role to the best of her abilities. She is a member of the Planning Department of Limerick County Council and consequently part of a team. Serious issues of performance concerns have arisen in recent years which have given rise to a poor performance record for the Appellant.

The Court is of the view that the Appellant must observe management instructions and attend all meetings scheduled. She must engage in a robust and active manner in respect of any guidance or support she feels she requires in order to carry out her role effectively to the standard expected of someone with her expertise and experience. The Court recognises and supports management’s efforts to assist the Appellant and upholds the Union’s request for quarterly performance reviews to be carried out over the next twelve months, for any clearly identified training needs analysis and for a development and training plan with identified goals for the Appellant. However, the Court recommends that the Appellant should actively engage with management in identifying the level and amount of training she may require in order to be able to carry out her duties effectively and to the standard required. The Court does not uphold the Union’s claim for payment of the increment due and recommends that such increment should be paid when there is agreement that the Appellant has completed a twelve-month satisfactory performance review.

On that basis the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation is varied accordingly.

The Court so Decides.




Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
27th May, 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.