ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026061
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Manager | An Educational Institution |
Representatives | Paul Hardy SIPTU | N/A |
Complaint(s):
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-00033125-001 | 16/12/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/08/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
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 complaint 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 was carrying out the functions and responsibilities of a position at a more senior level for approximately 6 years but was not considered for a suitable role when it became available on a permanent basis. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant was required to act up in a more senior role for a period of approximately six years and performed excellently. When a suitable position ultimately became available however, it was made clear to her by a member of senior management that she would not be considered for the role. The only position now available to the complainant is a lower level role. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated that the complainant assumed additional duties at the time of the economic crisis and that she should not have assumed any entitlement to a higher level position on a permanent basis despite having done an excellent job while acting up. It was also denied that the complainant was informed that she would not be considered for the higher level role when it was advertised. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note firstly the absence of any direct evidence from the respondent to refute the complainant’s assertion that she had been informed that she would not be considered for the more senior role. I also note that, although the complainant was acting up in the higher level role for six years and was acknowledged by the Respondent to have done an excellent job, she was not even invited to interview when a suitable position was advertised on a permanent basis. Bearing all of the above in mind, I find in favour of the complainant. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute
Having found in favour of the complainant, I recommend that she be paid the sum of €27,500 by the respondent as compensation for the unfairness of its treatment and the effects of this treatment on her. Given that this is not an award of wages, it is not subject to taxes or charges. This recommendation is based on the unique circumstances of this dispute and should not be invoked or relied upon in any other forum. |
Dated: 9th September 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|