ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009904

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/12/17

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O’Connell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Background

The claimant commenced employment with the respondent on the 12th April 2003 as a technician. He has a blemished free track work record. In addition to being a salaried employee, since 2004 technicians also receive an annual bonus of approximately 1% of the p60 based on an appraisal review.

The appraisal system in the company involves an interim review taking place in April which can highlight to a worker if there are areas needing to be improved. The payment of 1% of salary is based on the worker signing off on the annual review grade and the content /comments which takes place in October each year.

The claimant stated that he did not receive an interim review meeting in April 2014. and when it came to the annual review in October 2014, the claimant received grade rating of “good”. It was submitted this decision was not taken until 2nd December 2014.

The claimant objected to the unsubstantiated supervisor comments in relation “feedback from production” which were received by phone. The claimant refused to sign the appraisal form and he appealed the review grade he received using the respondent’s grievance procedure.

The first appeal was lodged on the 2nd December 2014 and the final lodged on the 20th November 2015 with the outcome of the 4th January 2016

Claimants position

The claimant submitted 23 different concerns that he had with the entire process some included the following;

1. The supervisor comments section of the form no specifics were cited and it was not highlighted during the year and he had no opportunity to deal with them
2. The claimant submitted that a meeting called in December included various members of management seeking to evaluate his work prior to the annual review.
3. The claimant asked the lead technician who was present at the meeting had there been any negative comments and he was informed all was good.

d            He was not afforded the opportunity of the Interim review in April where if the respondent had issues he would have the chance to deal with them.

Respondents position

The respondent submits that the claimant does not accept the grade and believes that he should have been awarded a higher grade. The appraisal performance review was conducted in a professional manner and there is open and constructive dialog which takes place

However, as with all appraisal systems there must be consistency with the rewarding of any grade and to deviate outside this for one individual who believes they should be awarded something different would be unfair and question the validity of the system in the first instance

The appeals conducted by the respondent were not only comprehensive but also identified areas which clearly could assist the claimant to achieve the grade which he believed that he deserved.

Findings

Both made written and verbal submissions at the hearing

It is accepted that the respondent has appraisal systems in place. I find that since the claimant commenced employment with them i.e. 12th April 2003 no issue has arisen with the Grade that he received during his appraisal.

I find that the claimant first raised the issue about his grade in October 2014. I find that based on evidence that the interim appraisal is conducted in April each year. I find that no interim review took place in April 2014 however a rating for the claimant was made in October 2014 that year. I find that had this appraisal been conducted say in April then the claimant would have had an opportunity to improve or deal with any concerns that the respondent may have had.

Recommendation

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I find the claimant is not seeking his grade to be improved but the process for which appraisal is carried out are done in the same manner and pattern on an ongoing basis.

I believe that this request is not unreasonable in circumstances.

I find that should circumstances happen where it is not possible to carry out interim appraisal then the claimant should be made aware of this and his previous year Grading should be applied to him until an interim appraisal is carried out at the usual time.

Dated:   22 February 2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O’Connell