Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Underwriter

Retail Bank

Representatives

Unite the Union

IR Manager

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-00020790-001

25/07/2018

The Worker has been employed by the Employer since 2000.

A new 5 point rating scale Performance Management Process was introduced by the Employer in May 2017 following a period of negotiation between the Employer and the Unions.

The Worker did not agree with his 2017 end of year appraisal rating and he appealed against his rating as per the agreed appeals process under the Performance Management System.

The outcome of the appeals process was to uphold the Worker’s end of year appraisal. The Worker was unhappy with the outcome of his appeal and has referred the matter to the WRC.

The Worker received an end of year rating of 4 (objectives not fully met) which he appealed through the agreed appeals process but without resolving the matter to his satisfaction.

The Worker submits that he has been appraised and judged on his performance from the beginning of 2017. Given that he only had his objective setting meeting in June 2017, he could not and should not have been appraised on his performance prior to May 2017 when the Performance Management Process came into effect.

The Worker submits that there are a number of difficulties with the Performance Management System in particular with regard to the setting of objectives and targets.

The Worker is seeking to have his rating upgraded to a 3 for 2017.

The Employer submits that, in the event of a disagreement during any stage of the Performance Management Process, the employee may invoke the appeals process which was agreed with the Unions.

The Employer submits that the appeals process involves 3 stages: the Informal Resolution Stage, the Appeal to a Nominated Independent Manager and an Appeal to an External Independent Adjudicator.

The Employer submits that the Worker invoked all three stages of the appeals process and that his appeal was not upheld. The Employer submits furthermore, that at the request of the Union, the Head of Employee Relations reviewed the outcome of the appeals process even though this was not required under the Performance Management System and that no issue was found with the process.

The Employer submits that the Performance Appeal Process, which was agreed with the Union, was adhered to in its entirety and found at every stage that the Worker’s rating should not be amended based on the presented evidence.

On the basis of the totality of the evidence adduced, I find that the Employer conducted the Performance Appeals Process in line with the collective agreement in place between the Employer and the Union. In fact, I note that an extra step, which was not required under the agreed Performance Appeals Process was added by the Employer to ensure that the Worker was afforded a fair hearing.

I note that the Employer’s Performance Management System Appeals Process does not envisage a role for the WRC. If such a role was intended, no doubt it would have been included in the Appeals Process.

Having considered the submissions of both parties and the evidence adduced at the adjudication hearing, I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.

Performance management