ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005900
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Lead Technician | An Electronic Components Company |
Complaints:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00008100-001 | 10/11/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00008100-002 | 10/11/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/04/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the Disputes to me by the Director General, I inquired into the Disputes and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the Disputes.
Background:
The claimant has lodged an appeal of a 12 month written warning imposed on 13 August 2014.He also lodged a claim to seek an assessment of his annual reviews for the years 2013/2014 and 2014/2015. |
1. Summary of Claimant’s Case: CA -00008100-001: Appeal of Written Warning
The Claimant commenced employment on September, 1999 and works as a Lead Technician. He receives an annual bonus based on a personal appraisal system dependent on the grade received. The claimant applied for a day’s annual leave for Family reason on June 4th 2014 which was refused .The claimant sought reconsideration based on his contention that there was some scope for the request to be granted. This was unsuccessful. The claimant was driving to work on the 4th June, when he suffered a migraine. The claimants representative drew the attention of the hearing to a Medical Report from the claimants own GP which confirmed a history of migraine. The claimant was issued with a written warning dated 25 September 2014, which he appealed during the months of March and May 2015, without success .He took issue with the events of June 4, 2014 being classified as “insubordination” as a Group B offence in the Disciplinary Procedure .The warning expired on 15 August 2015. The claimant sought a recommendation from the Adjudicator that the warning was excessive in all the circumstances and that it be removed from his appraisal file .The Claimants representative submitted that the delay in submitting the instant complaint was due to the matter being linked to an Appraisal system, subject of long delays. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer disputed the claim .The Employer operates an automotive electronics components business and employs 950 staff in Ireland,360 of whom are located in the plant referred to in this case .The Respondent operates a Collective Agreement with SIPTU. The claimant transferred to the present plant in 2007 .On 13 August 2014, the claimant was issued with a written warning relating to an absence on 4 June 2014.Two appeals followed as provided for in the company /union collective agreement .The warning, of 12 months duration was removed on expiration from the claimants employee file 20 months ago. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully considered both presentations, both written and oral submitted by the parties. I found that the employer engaged in a very thorough management of the disciplinary process on this occasion. I noted that on 14 May 2015, the claimant had received an elaborate clarification of the objective of the written warning which covered “ an unexcused absence from work “ a Group B offence, rather than insubordination, which is classified as a Group C offence . |
Recommendation:Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the Disputes in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. I have not established any grounds for disturbing this sanction. I would however recommend that the complainant receive a letter from the employer within four weeks of the issuing of this decision which confirms that the warning has been removed from the file maintained by the company for his Appraisal purposes. |
The Appraisal system operated at the company involves annual reviews in October and interim reviews in April, if a question of underperformance arises, so as improvements can be achieved prior to the October deadline .The payment of the award is based on signing off on the review grade and content. The Appeal mechanism is via the 4 stage process of the Company Grievance Procedure.
The claimant was dissatisfied with his Appraisal process governing the years 2013/2014 and 2014/2015.His case before the hearing was based on a stated need to have an independent assessor appointed to decide if the grades issued were merited in addition to seeking the provision of factual and accurate reviews.
The claimant submitted that he had done very well at the company up until the review for the year 2012/2013 when he raised issues in relation to the review of direct reports in the context of his appraisal, he requested to insert some comments, but was refused by the Assessor.
He had not signed his yearly appraisals from the years at the centre of the claim and had not been paid his bonus. He had accepted and signed the 2016 appraisal which achieved a “Good “grading which fell for payment in 2017.
The Complainant had a recorded grade of Excellent for the years 2008 -2012 .He achieved “ Very Good “ in 2013 and “ Good “ in 2014. He appealed the latter award.
He submitted that the Appraisal Process was flawed on the grounds that:
1 For the two years in question, he was not provided with any substance to the grade awarded by his Supervisor.
2 Detailed Proof of work challenging the grade “ good” was provided by him at each appeal stage but not investigated or acknowledged .
3 The claimant had sought to challenge incorrect statements made during the review period by putting Individuals names forward to corroborate his claims, but these people were not interviewed in the appeal/ investigative process .The claimant took issue with the wording of his appeals outcomes.
4 The written warning was included in the deliberations.
5 The claimant contended that the entirety of his work contribution had not been fairly captured by the company.
6 The Interim review was due to be carried out in April 2014, but did not take place until August 6, 2014. His 2014 review was extended from October 2014 to January 15, 2015 contrary to Policy and without the agreement of the claimant.
The claimant submitted that he had not been given a fair chance at these reviews and that efforts made by him to express his opinion were not heard by the company.
Summary of the Employer Response:
The employer rejected the claim .During the course of the claimants performance appraisal for 2014, a number of areas were identified by his Supervisor for further improvement and he was awarded the grade of “ Good”.
This was upheld on appeal to the Department Supervisor on 9 March 2015.This was further appealed on 13 July 2015 to the Production Manager .Documentation was sought by the Appeals Officer from both the claimant and his Supervisor in respect of the claimants performance .The Production Manager suggested that a Development Plan be put in place to ensure that the claimant obtained the grade he believed he deserved .A Copy of the Development plan and documentation was submitted.
A further appeal followed to the Personnel Officer on 4 August 2015, where the overall evaluation of “good” was found to be fair and reasonable and his appeal was unsuccessful.
The next years review was conducted in January 2016 .In addition, the development plan was also reviewed. The grade of” good “ was awarded on foot of some areas deemed to be in need of improvement .This was forwarded for appeal to the Department Supervisor ,who affirmed the grade of “ Good” and appended a number of considerations of support for the claimants attention .
The claimant lodged a further appeal with the Production Manager and attended a hearing on 9 June, 2016. The Production Manager heard his appeal based on
Disagreement on the written content of the Grading Review
Delayed Review
No Technical Training over last few years
Granting of holidays
The Production Manager found that some of the areas of the review would be reworded for clarity of information .The delay in completion of crew reviews was given as the reason for the delayed scheduling of the review .Training records were found to be comparable to his colleagues . The company had proposed that Lead Technicians cover each other for leave, but this had been rejected.
The Grading of “Good “was upheld .One further appeal followed to the Personnel Officer, which was unsuccessful.
The Employer contended that the performance reviews are conducted in a professional manner with open and constructive dialogue taking place .All appeals were managed in accordance with the Company/Union agreements.
The Employer contended that that the claimant did not accept the grade and believe that he deserved a higher grade .The purpose of performance appraisal is a commitment to maximise consistency across he company in relation to the implementation of the process and how the ratings get set.
The Employer believed that they had adopted a very comprehensive and fair approach to the claimant
Findings and Conclusions:
I have given careful consideration to both parties’ presentations in this case. Firstly , I was struck by the amount of time invested in this process by both parties .I noted that the claimant had maintained a very high Grading of “ Excellent “ up until the events as outlined above .I understand that the bonus awards range from 1% -3% in accordance with the recorded grade of Good , Very Good and Excellent respectively .
I accept that the Appraisals process leading to these awards must be fair and must be seen to be fair by all parties. This forms a very important part of the employment relationship and I believe it is somewhat fractured in the claimants case .I appreciate that the company want to be seen to treat all applicants fairly and consistently and not be seen to randomly depart from the grade as awarded . I was pleased to see the formulation of the Development Plan designed to assist the parties.
I have found that the process of appraisal is going wrong for the claimant at first instance and while some helpful remarks have followed on appeal, nothing much changed .I do not believe that it is practical for me to recommend an external assessment process as it clear to me that both parties posses the capacity and skill to secure a local resolution.
I believe that the challenge for the parties is to seek to get it” right first time” at annual review and to that end I recommend that the company trial an alternative appraisal process in the claimants case for at least a 12 month period with provision for evaluation at the end of Year 1 .It is clear that the company objectives are ever evolving and it may be the case that this needs to find stronger roots in the annual review discussions for both parties.
I recommend that a two person Review Team preside over the next Performance Appraisal to allow for an Integrative and participatory approach, where the claimant could equally be represented, if desired. This process should be supported by revised Terms of Reference agreed in advance by both parties .It should feed into the annual appraisal by optimising a pathway for the claimant to have a restored faith in the process as well as a mutually agreeable forum for discussion and debate for the parties with a view to establishing a fair grading that both parties can live with.
Dated: 06th July 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
|