FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PERMANENT TSB - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY RICHIE BROWNE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer Recommendation No ADJ-00016063.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute over the outcome of an Appeal taken by a Worker against his performance rating which was conducted under the agreed Performance Management System and is taken under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The matter was heard before the Workplace Relations Commission on 17th of October 2018. A recommendation issued on 4th of December 2018.
The Adjudicator found that the Permanent TSB conducted the performance management appeal in line with procedures. The matter was referred to the Labour Court on 11th of January 2019. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th of March 2019.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The union believes that the adjudication finding is flawed; as it is not for agreed internal procedures to waive or obstruct the statutory rights of an employee and the dispute was not whether the appeals process had been applied but rather that the finding from that process was incorrect in not reflecting the terms of the agreed performance management system.
2. The union requests that the Court upholds the Workers claim that the rating of 4 given for his performance under the agreed performance management system be set aside and a rating of 3 be recommended for 2017 based on the remaining objectives being assessed as being achieved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company submits that the Worker invoked all stages of the agreed appeals process and that his appeal was not upheld.
2. The Company 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 agreed Performance Management System and that no issue was found with the process.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
This is an appeal of a decision of an Adjudication Officer wherein the Claimant’s performance appraisal rating for 2017 was not set aside. The Claimant now seeks to have the Court set aside the performance appraisal rating he received in 2017 under the Performance Management System which had been implemented that year arising from a collective agreement between the Claimant’s Union and the employer. Additionally, he seeks that the Court would afford him a higher rating for 2017 under that system.
The Court notes that the appraisal rating afforded to the Claimant was measured against key objectives and measures upon which he had signed off with his manager earlier in the year. The Court also notes that the method of implementation of the system in the case of the Claimant was identical to the manner in which it was implemented for his colleagues in the Retail Credit Centre of the Risk Department at a minimum. The employer submitted that the method of implementation was identical for all 2,400 employees while the Trade Union did not accept, on the basis of information available to it, that this was universally the case.
The Court notes that the agreed performance management system involves appeal mechanisms at the stage of objective setting and that the Claimant raised no issue on appeal at the stage of objective setting in 2017. The agreement allows for two levels of appeal of an employee’s appraisal rating at year end and the Claimant did appeal his rating at year end in 2017. The agreed internal and external appeal mechanisms were supplemented in the case of the Claimant by a review at senior management level following the exhaustion of the agreed appeal mechanisms.
The Court cannot put itself in the position of reviewer of the performance of the Claimant. The Court is satisfied that robust appeal mechanisms are in place in the agreed scheme and that they have been exhausted in the case of the Claimant.
In all of the circumstances the Court finds that the appeal cannot succeed.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CH______________________
19th March 2019Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Carol Hennessy, Court Secretary.