FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No(s)ADJ-00020643 and CA-00027210.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation by the Union on behalf of the Worker. On the 19 June 2019 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
“I have decided that the Worker was not treated less favourably. I recommend that the Worker accepts this.
I have decided that the Employer has adhered to its policy and procedure on recruitment and selection. I recommend that the Worker accepts this.
I have decided that there was an undue delay in giving the feedback and concluding the grievance investigation.
I recommend that the Employer pays the Complainant €1,000 in compensation for this delay. This should be paid within six weeks of the date below.
I recommend that the Employer meets with the Worker to discuss a career plan with her.I recommend that this discussion should be frank and direct.
I recommend that the Worker should examine herself on how she deals with feedback and address the Employer’s concerns that she may be unwilling to accept it.”.
The Union on behalf of the Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 17 July 2019 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17 October 2019.
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 Employer failed to afford her reasonable treatment in relation to her application for a promotion.
The Worker’s representative in his submission to the Court stated that it was their position that the Employer failed to adhere to their own policy and guidelines and therefore placed the Worker at a disadvantage in particular the fact that they interviewed people without all the relevant criteria. The Worker’s representative also drew the Court’s attention to some administrative errors that occurred during the process. It was also their submission that the Employer was tardy in processing her claim under the grievance procedure.
The Employer’s submission is that only one person had all the criteria. The four other applicants including the worker did not meet all the criteria. The Employer followed their procedure and provided the Worker with feedback. The Employer does not accept that there was any delay in either providing feed back or processing her grievance.
The Court having carefully read all the submissions and listened to the oral submissions on the day does not believe that any flaw that may have occurred during the interview and or grievance process was of a nature that would be fatal to one or both of the processes.
The Court decided that the complainant is not well founded but recommends that if the Worker is willing that the Employer meet with the Worker to discuss a career plan with her.
The Decision of the Adjudication officer is varied accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
DC______________________
30 October 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.