ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010872
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | IT Security Specialist | Telecommunications Company |
Representatives | Ronan Brennan Brennan & Co. Solicitors |
|
Complaint
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 | CA-00014173-001 | 22/09/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/11/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, and following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant has been employed with the Respondent Company since 15th May 1998. He is paid €42,000 gross per annum. The Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relation Commission under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 alleging he had been penalised by the Respondent Company in relation to a pay increase in his wages and the lodging of a personal injury claim against his Employer |
Preliminary Issue – Section27 (2) of Section 27 (3) of the Act.
Section 27 (3) of the Act provides as follows – “ An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee for – (a) acting in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions (b) performing any duty or exercising any right under the relevant statutory provisions (c) Making a complaint or representation to his or her safety representative or employer or the Authority, as regards any matter relating to safety, health and welfare at work (d) giving evidence in proceedings in respect of the enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions (e) being a safety representative or an employee designated under section 11 or appointed under section 18 to perform functions under this Act, or (f) subject to subsection (6), in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he or she could not reasonably have been expected to avert, leaving or while the danger persisted, refusing to return to his or her place of work or any dangerous part of his or her place of work, or taking appropriate steps to protect himself or herself or other persons from the danger.”
The Complainant and his legal representative identified two issues as complying with Section 27 (3) of the Act, namely (1) that he had made a complaint to senior HR Officials in late 2014 that he had not been given any salary increase and (2) that he had lodged a personal injury complaint against his Employer. However, it transpired during the course of the Hearing on 23rd November 2017 that the Complainant had received a salary increase in June 2014 – a further increase in June 2015 and a further increase in his salary in June 2017. Furthermore, the Complainant only issued personal injury proceedings in May 2017. He is alleging penalisation under Section 27 (2) of the Act in relation to the outcome of a performance review in December 2015 and again in 2016 where “Development Needed” performance rating was applied to him.
Firstly, the first issue which relates to his complaint in relation to a salary increase does not meet the criteria under Section 27(3) of the Act. Secondly the Complainant only lodged his Personal Injury claim against the Respondent in May 2017 yet he is classifying the penalisation as having occurred in December 2015 and again in 2016 when he received a “Development Needed” performance rating. However, these ratings were issued prior to the Personal injury claim being lodged in May 2017. The Complainant has not established any causal link between the alleged protected acts and the alleged penalisation.
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints.
In accordance with Section 41(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, I declare the complaint is not well founded as the Complainant has not satisfied either Sections 27 (1), (2) or (3) of the Act as set out in my findings under “Preliminary Issues” above. |
Dated: 27th March 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin
Key Words:
Penalisation – Sections 27 (1) (2) (3) of Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 |