ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00020757
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Carpenter | A Local Authority |
Representatives | Connect Trade Union |
|
Dispute:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00027230-001 | 22/03/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/11/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following 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 worker detailed that the employer did not apply the terms of the acting up policy appropriately and had failed to deal with his concerns. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker has on many occasions acted up in accordance with the employer’s policy.
In January 2019 when the worker’s foreman went out sick, the worker acted up as foreman and upon the return to work of the foreman, the worker resumed his duties. The foreman retired on 1st February 2019 and advised the worker that the worker would be the acting foreman thereafter. When the worker attended work he found another worker was doing the role of Acting Foreman. The worker could not get an answer to why he was not doing the work of Acting up Foreman.
The worker referred to the employer’s Acting Up Policy – Outdoor Staff which detailsthat inter alia selection is based on “seniority, suitability, and experience within the relevant section…” and it was submitted that the employer had deviated from policy as well as normal custom and practice, by taking someone in from outside the normal area of work |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The worker has acted up as foreman in the past in accordance with the Acting Up Policy - Outdoor Staff which details that selection is based on seniority. The worker was not the most senior person and the employer acted in accordance with their policy.
It was accepted that the worker had raised the issue with HR. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The worker had an expectation that he would assume an acting up position. Despite requests to the employer, his grievance does not appear to have been addressed appropriately. The employer details that the person who assumes an acting up position must be the most senior person. Having heard the submissions from both the employer and the worker and noting the lack of clarity in the policy,
I recommend as follows: Both parties should meet to review the Acting Up Policy– Outdoor Staff and its application where there is lack of clarity. Due to the unique circumstances of this case, the employer should pay the worker €900 by way of compensation for the manner in which they dealt with this matter. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that :
Both parties should meet to review the Acting Up Policy and its application where there is lack of clarity. Due to the unique circumstances of this case, the employer should pay the worker €900 by way of compensation for the manner in which they dealt with this matter. |
Dated: 30th April 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Acting up policy, industrial relations act |