FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND, GALWAY (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No: ADJ-00005199.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns performance ratings received by the Worker as part of the Performance Management Development System (PMDS).
The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On 11 October 2017 the Adjudication Officer issued the following recommendation:-
- I note that the respondent has confirmed that the current Performance Improvement Plan is achieving its aims and that the Scheme is currently being reviewed. I recommend that both parties engage further in their review of the Scheme with a view to achieving an agreed position on how the matters raised through these instant disputes can best be remedied to the satisfaction of all parties.
The Union on behalf of the Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on 17 November 2017 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 24 January 2018. The following is the Decision of the Court:
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
This matter has a long and detailed history. Both parties accept that the Court does not have a role in ‘second guessing’ the assessments of the Claimant’s manager as a result of the reviews conducted in 2015 and again in 2016 but nevertheless the Court is invited by the Claimant to set aside the ratings awarded as a result of those assessments.
The Court notes that the ratings at issue in the within matter relate to the working years of 2014 and 2015. The Court can see no practical implication for the Claimant in 2018 arising from ratings awarded in respect of his work performance in 2014 and 2015. The Court notes in fact that, for other reasons, no reviews or assessments have taken place at all in the University in respect of working years 2016 and 2017.
The Claimant was awarded a rating of 2 on a five-point scale in respect of his work performance in each of the years 2014 and 2015. The Decision of the Adjudication Officer which is under appeal would, if accepted, have resulted in a rating of 2 being applied to the Claimant in respect of his work performance in 2014 and a rating of 3 in respect of his work performance in 2015.
This matter comes before the Court as an industrial relations matter and it is in that context that the Court has addressed the issue.
Taking account of all of the circumstances, the Court, without prejudice to the position of either party in the matter before it and in the interest of good industrial relations, recommends that a rating of 2 be applied to the work performance of the Claimant in 2014 and a rating of 3 in respect of his work performance in 2015.
The Decision of the Adjudication officer is affirmed.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
1 February 2018______________________
MNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.