FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HOME FARE SERVICES UNLIMITED COMPANY T/A KSG - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation No: ADJ-00013890.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim that the sanction of demotion in perpetuity is excessive and the transfer to a new site is both punitive and a breach of prior commitments.
The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On 6 November 2018 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
"I recommend that the respondent install a structured Performance Improvement Programme at the earliest opportunity and that it conduct a review of the complainant's performance in February 2019 to establish whether she meets its requirements for a return to her previous grade. If she has then her demotions should come to an end and she should be restored to het[sic] previous grade as soon as the opportunity to do so presents itself."
The Union on behalf of the Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on 10 December 2018 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
DECISION:
This case is an appeal by a Worker of the Decision of an Adjudication Officer. The issue in dispute between the parties is the Worker’s claim that the sanctions imposed on the Worker following an internal disciplinary process were excessive.
The Worker’s representative in his submission to the Court stated that it was their position that the penalty imposed by the Employer falls outside what could be considerable reasonable. The Worker’s representative in their submission alluded to a flawed process but did not identify any specific flaws in the process used. It is the Worker’s contention that the demotion was an ongoing sanction and the effect of same was that the Worker not only had reduced earnings, but she was also transferred to a different location. It was the Workers view that it was inappropriate to place her on a performance improvement plan on top of the demotion and transfer.
The Employer’s representative informed the Court that they had sought to implement the Adjudication Officer’s decision by putting in place the personal improvement plan but that the Worker had objected to same. It was their case that a serious of complaints had been made against the Worker which they had investigated in accordance with their procedure. The Complainant had access to a Union Representative and no issues had been raised during the process in relation to any concerns with the procedure being followed. It was the Employer’s position that taking everything into account demotion was an appropriate option. On foot of the demotion the Worker was transferred however it was to a different location on the same site. In response to a question from the Court the Employer confirmed that Manager posts are filled by competition and being on a personal improvement plan would not of itself debar the Worker or any worker from applying for such a post if a vacancy arose.
The Court having carefully read all the submissions and listened to the oral submissions on the day decides that the Employer should install a structured Performance Improvement Plan for the Worker to run for six months from the date of this Decision with the aim of ensuring that the Worker develops the appropriate skills to allow her return to her previous grade in line with the normal procedure for the filling of such posts.
The Decision of the Adjudication officer is varied accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
29 March 2019______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.