FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK (REPRESENTED BY MR TOM MALLON B.L., AS INSTRUCTED BY ARTHUR COX SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Promotion
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Worker in relation to his unsuccessful promotion to a Senior Lecturer position in June 2015. It is the Worker's contention that he was unfairly overlooked for this position and furthermore, the successful applicants held less qualifications than him. The Claimant therefore maintains that the University acted in breach of the terms of its promotion policy. The Claimant has since been approved for promotion to Senior Lecturer in 2016. He is currently seeking his date of promotion to be backdated to 2015 and to be compensated for the loss of earnings and pension payments associated with same. The Employer rejects the Claimant's claim, arguing that it fully complied with its procedures when the Claimant was unsuccessful in his promotion application in 2015.
On the 4th July, 2016 the Claimant 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 10th November 2016. The Claimant agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant was unfairly overlooked for promotion in 2015.
2. The Claimant contends that the Employer did not follow proper procedure in reaching its decision not to promote him at that time.
3. The Claimant is seeking compensation for loss of earnings and pension payments, in addition to the stress he endured throughout the entire process.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that there was no breach of procedures at any time.
2. The Claimant was treated fairly and equitably at all stages throughout the process.
3. The Employer is not in a position to concede the Claimant's claim to backdate his promotion to 2015.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concernsa claim by an employee that he should have been successful in his application for promotion to Senior Lecturer on 5thJune 2015. He claimed that he had the required qualifications and experience for the position and that many other candidates who were less qualified were successfully promoted into the role.
In submitting his claim the Claimant has in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Act undertaken to accept the Recommendation of the Court.
The Claimant appealed the decision not to promote him to the Review Committee but was not successful. However the Claimant was successful in his application for promotion to Senior Lecturer in the 2016 promotions panel, subject to Governing Authority approval. The University confirmed that it can see no reason why his successful application in 2016 will not be approved.
The Claimant is now seeking that the decision to promote him should be backdated to June 2015 when the 2015 promotion panel met in relation to his case. He seeks compensation for the loss of earnings, loss of pension payments, and for the stress and time committed to preparation of his claim before the Court.
The Court notes that the University’s “Policy and Procedures for the Promotion of Academic Staff” is an agreed policy between the University and Unite, the trade union. It was agreed between the parties and approved by the Governing Authority on 31stOctober 2014. Since then it has been reviewed and amended by the parties.
In dealing with similar disputes in the past the Court has taken the view that in the absence of irregularity in the conduct of the promotion process, or manifest irrationality in the result, the Court cannot seek to re-run the process and substitute its views on the merits of the applicants for those of the Promotions Board, or make a comparative analysis of their work.
The Court has considered the submissions made by both parties. In its letter to the Claimant dated 28thSeptember 2015, the Corporate Secretary of the Review Committee stated that the Committee had indicated to the Governing Authority that following an in-depth review and based on the documentation submitted and subsequent meetings it found no evidence of manifest departure from procedures which adversely affected his candidature for promotion and accordingly recommended that the decision of the Promotions Board not to promote him be upheld. This letter was accompanied with the report into the investigation by the Review Committee.
Having examined the report of the Review Committee, and taking account of the points raised by the Claimant, the Court is satisfied that the Review Committee examined and addressed all the points raised by the Claimant and submitted its findings on each.
In all the circumstances, the Court sees no reasons to disturb the Review Committee findings and recommends accordingly.
Therefore, the Court does not uphold the Claimant’s claims
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd November 2016______________________
CJDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.