ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00014590

DISPUTE;

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/08/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 andfollowing the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

BACKGROUND.

The Complainant has been employed with the Respondent Company since 29th April 2013. She is paid £1583.00 gross per month and she works 22.5 hours a week. The Complainant referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission on 11th May 2018 in relation to her Performance Review and its impact on her Bonus Payment.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINANT’S POSITION.

The Complainant commenced employment in a named role on 29th April 2013 and in September 2013 she moved to a position as a Consultant to a named make-up brand. She remained in this role until March 2016 when she became the Business Manager for the same brand name. She stepped down from this role and into her current role as a Consultant in September 2016.

On 17th November 2017 a meeting was held between the Complainant and her Assistant Manager and she was presented with a letter of her performance review for the previous 12 months. The Complainant was adjudged to be non-performing. As a result she was not eligible for a Bonus Payment in November 2017.

The Respondent operated a Performance Review with three grades – Not Performing – Performing and Legendry.

The Complainant appealed the decision and this was heard on 9th February 2018 conducted by a named Store Manager of a different Store. The Complainant outlined her position at this meeting that the process was flawed and that her performance throughout the year warranted a rating of Performing. The outcome was to uphold the performance rating – Not Performing.

The dispute was referred to the WRC on 11th May 2018.

MANDATE Trade Union argued on behalf of the Complainant as follows – The employee should be aware in good time how they are performing and what rating they can expect to receive, thus making it possible for the employee to address any shortcomings – that a fair process must be adhered to at all times – Interviews with the Complainant’s Line Managers during the process – the Complainant had worked for the Respondent for some 5 years and is dedicated to her work. She was the only member of the named Team who was rated as non-performing and when potential earnings are in question the scheme must be operated in a fair, transparent and reasonable manner.

The Complainant is seeking the decision of the Respondent is overturned by the Adjudication Officer.

SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION.

The Respondent operates a discretionary bonus scheme which is in part based on individual performance. The performance standards are – Non-performing – Performing and Legendry. Each role has a set of standards attached to it and individual performance ratings are based on each individual performance in a year which runs from September to August. The period under review was September 2016 to August 2017. Each employee gives their input and the Complainant did so for this review. In a dispute the decision rests with Management.

The Complainant received a final performance grading of not performing on 7th November 2017. The Complainant appealed this rating on the basis that – the rating was unfair – that due process was not followed – the outcome was pre-determined. The Appeal was chaired by a named Store Manager and the Complainant was afforded a right of representation. This meeting took place on 9th February 2018. The Chair interviewed the Complainant’s Store Manager and the named Assistant Store Manager. The Respondent set out in detail the reasons for the performance rating.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.

Both Parties confirmed that the Complainant had a range of roles with the Respondent Company since April 2013 and her current role is as a Consultant with a named brand in a Store of the Respondent.

Both Parties confirmed that the Complainant had received Performance Ratings of Performing (3) and Legendry (1) since the commencement of her employment.

The Complainant is seeking a recommendation from the Adjudication Officer to overturn the current performance rating – Not Performing - of the Respondent. I note the Determination of the Labour Court UDD 187 in which the Court held as follows – It is not for the Court to establish whether or not the Complainant was incompetent or under-performing in the discharge of his duties. Were the Court to adopt that approach, it would in effect be trying to second-guess from a removed stand-point, the Respondent’s managers who are responsible for managing performance of subordinates and who are best placed to evaluate performance on the job.

While this decision of the Labour Court was heard under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – 2015, nonetheless the same principles apply in relation to performance rating as it affects the discretionary bonus scheme.

Decision:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. In accordance with Section 13 of the Act and in view of my findings above I do not find in favour of the Complainant in relation to this dispute.

Dated:   17/10/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Key Words: