FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : A UNIVERSITY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00006049 CA-00008360-001
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Claimant's appeal of the Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer. The dispute relates specifically to the Claimant's claim that she was unfairly overlooked for promotion. The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 5th May 2017 the Adjudication Officer issued her recommendation as follows:
"In large organisations with hierarchical grading structures, re-grading normally takes place following some, system-based assessment process rather than collective bargaining or negotiation. This is dome in order to preserve equity in in the system and to ensure that the rewards and the levels of responsibility are matched.
The complainant understands the system well. She is employed in the HR department and has been through it on previous occasions; sometimes successfully but on the last occasion she was not (in 2006).
It is difficult to see how a person can come seeking a remedy for any grievance which occurred in 2006. Further, I can see no grounds for an adjudicator substituting himself for the grading process which remains available to the complainant subject to compliance with its requirements.
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I do not uphold the complaint CA-00008360-001 which is not well-founded."
ADJ-00006049
On 14 June 2017 the Complainant appealed the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 19th July 2017.
UNION ARGUMENTS
The Union argued that their member was not afforded fair procedures throughout the grievance process. The Union further stated that they are of the view that the respondent deliberately delayed the advancement of the grievance process in order to discourage the Worker from pursuing said grievance. In conclusion the Union stated that they strongly believe that the decision not to uphold the Worker's grievance was unfair.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS
The Company stated that they believe the Worker has been treated fairly and in accordance with the agreed Committee review structures in relation to her position. The Company also informed the Court that from 2008 to 2012 there were was no promotional or upgrading process for any employee within the University. The Company did acknowledge there were unfortunate delays in the processing of the formal grievance raised in 2015 butalso believes the Worker to be somewhat responsible for the delays due to her lack of co-operation regarding management queries.
The following is the Decision of the Court:
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of a worker of an Adjudication Officers decision in which she 1) sought to be regraded to a named grade in the Respondents grading structure backdated to 2007 and, 2)complained about delays in the processing of a grievance submitted in 2015 and from which she was not afforded an appeal. The Adjudication officer did not uphold the complaint.
The Court having considered the detailed submissions of both parties notes that there is a procedure in place in the employment for upgrades/promotions. This is a two part procedure requiring in the initial stage the support of your line manager. The final stage is a decision by the review committee set up under the agreed procedure. It is not in dispute between the parties that under the procedure there is no appeal from the final stage or that the procedure was not followed by the employer.
The Unions complaint related to the failure of the manager to support a claim for regrading going forward to the committee. The employer contended that if an employee felt their manager was being unfair they could process a grievance through the normal grievance procedure. However this is not set out in the promotions policy and no such grievance was pursued in this case until 2015. It is the view of the Court that in a process where an individual requires the support of their manager to access the promotional opportunity, then a process for addressing any grievance that might arise in connection with whether or not the support is forthcoming from the manager should be expressly provided for.
The second issue raised by the claimant was the undue delay in processing her grievance lodged in April 2015. The employer stated that in the period till year end 2015 there was correspondence with the union representative in relation to clarifications sought. However they could offer no explanation for the delay from January 2016 to June 2016 when the grievance was finally investigated. Best practise would dictate that grievances would be processed as speedily as possible and this is recognised in the employers own grievance procedure. Going forward the employer should ensure grievances are addressed in a timely manner.
It is not the role of the court to substitute its view for the view of the committee charged with making decisions around promotions /upgrades. The role of the Court is to establish if fair procedure has been followed. The Union acknowledged that the agreed procedure for seeking an upgrade/promotion had been followed and in those circumstances the recommendation of the Adjudicator is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
JD______________________
9 August 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.