FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MATHESON SOLICITORS (REPRESENTED BY GARETH KYNE INSTRUCTED BY MC INNES DUNNE SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY DAVID LEONARD B.L. INSTRUCTED BY SINNOTT SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Resolution of dispute
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the worker and her employer in relation to the introduction of a new Performance Management System. The worker contends that the requirements of the System are excessive and that the sanctions associated with perceived under performance are excessive and inappropriate. Management contends that the vast majority of staff have co-operated with the System and have attained the standard required to carry out their function in the organisation.
On the 29th October 2014 the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court 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 10th February 2015.
WORKER'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The System put in place by management is completely unfair. If a staff member is unsuccessful in any of the proficiency tests, remedial action is taken and the threat of disciplinary action exists in circumstances where the required standards are not achieved. This is completely unfair and inappropriate.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The System in place is accepted by the vast majority of the staff. Certain standards are required and if there are any deficiencies the appropriate supports are in place. Management must retain the right to manage its business and ensure that the staff in question are sufficiently skilled to carry out the duties for which they were employed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns a dispute over the introduction by Management in 2013 of a new programme of employee assessment, entitled the “Legal Personal Assistant Programme”. The Claimant objected to the Programme on the basis that non-compliance with its assessment regime and/or failure to pass an assessment test could lead to imposition of detrimental effects on her, including disciplinary sanctions being imposed via the Performance Improvement Programme. Accordingly, she refused to fully engage with the training/assessment plan.
Management stated the Programme was designed to achieve and maintain reasonable proficiency standards in the use of a number of computer software packages routinely used in the performance of her duties. It stated that the Programme has been successful and the vast majority of Legal Personal Assistants have complied with it and have been certified as attaining the required levels of competencies for their job function. It stated that the assessment process is designed to inform Management and employees alike regarding the skill level of an employee and to determine what additional training, if any, is required to assist an employee to meet the standard required for their job function.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court fully accepts that the Legal Personal Assistant Programme is designed to ensure that the skills and competencies of Legal Personal Assistants are kept up to date and that they are trained to a consistent standard in the use of software packages required for their job function while accepting that certain employees will require more advanced skills depending on the needs of their roles. The Court is satisfied that such training requirements come within the realm of normal ongoing change and do not alter an employee’s conditions of employment.
The Court notes that it is possible to seek exemption from the Programme depending on the personal and/or medical circumstances of the Legal Personal Assistant.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that unless an exemption applies to the Claimant, the requirement for training and upskilling applies equally to her as it does to all other Legal Personal Assistants and accordingly recommends that she should be given every support, opportunity and assistance, without a threat of disciplinary sanction, to undertake the training necessary to meet the standard required, prior to the next assessment date in September 2015 and in the event of a re-sit up to 31stDecember 2015. The Court recommends that the Claimant should co-operate with this process.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd March 2015______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.