FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No.ADJ-00026549 CA-00033830-001 BACKGROUND: 2.The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 25th May 2021 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. On 10th May 2021 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:- "....I find the complaint well founded and Recommend that the Worker be paid compensation of 3,000 Euros.This is on a once off red circledbasis and forms no precedent for any future or other similar claim.Again, for the sake of clarity, this compensation is not for the Employernotfollowing the agreed process but specifically relating to the agreed circumstances of this Workers Technical Rating not being discussed with him in advance by Line Management and its possible influence on his Panel Placement. Also, for the sake of clarity, had the Worker received the maximum Technical Rating or have been met by their Line Manager in advance of submitting their application, the Worker would not have succeeded in this dispute." A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual Courtroom on 4th August, 2021.
The Appellant is very concerned that the procedures put in place for the conduct of a promotional competition were not followed correctly and he is concerned that a failure in this regard has affected his candidacy. He is also concerned that a rating awarded to him by his Head of Department (HOD) as part of the application process may have been unfair by reference to that awarded to other candidates from his Department who were awarded higher ratings by the HOD. The employer asserted that, whereas particular meetings between the Appellant and his managers may not have taken place in person, a significant level of interaction did occur by mail and phone in the course of the Appellant preparing his application for the competition. The employer submitted that the outcome of the competition, in which the Appellant was not successful in being appointed albeit he was successful in being placed on a panel for appointment, was not affected in any way to the detriment of the Appellant by any failure of procedure in the application process. The Court is unable to conclude that the interview board conducted itself in any manner other than correctly by reference to the procedure in place for the conduct of the competition. Neither it is open to the Court to conclude that the rating given to him by his HOD was other than the genuine and properly formed view of the HOD. The Court does note that certain elements of the procedure, which is very detailed, for preparation by the candidate of his application for the competition were not followed as written. In that context, the Court notes that the Appellant, in making his application, did not avail of the opportunity provided to him on the application form to raise any issue with the process followed by his line manager or Head of Department in supporting him in making his application. In all the circumstances the Court is unable to agree with the Appellant that the outcome of the competition at issue was unfair to him. The Court does note however that the Appellant has been extremely concerned at his experience in the competition. The Court also notes the very long service of the Appellant and for this reason recommends that the employer should, as a gesture of goodwill made in the interest of good industrial relations, make a payment of €3,000 in full and final settlement of this trade dispute. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary. |
