ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028803
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Technician | Communications |
Representatives | Union | Legal Department |
Complaint:
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-00038516-001 | 03/07/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/11/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following 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 claimant lodged a grievance on the 4th October 2018 with the respondent.
The claimant submitted.
a – non-compliance by the respondent with reference to management process.
B – lack of transparency regarding goalsetting and work assignments
C – lack of transparency and fairness regarding scoring methods
Summary of the claimant’s position
The claimant submitted substantial documentation to support various arguments in support of his case. He stated that he has failed to get responses or answers to various issues that he has raised with the respondent. While an investigation was carried out on 24 September 2019 and report was issued on 20 December 2019.The report does not uphold the claimant's arguments however it made certain recommendations.
The claimant appealed the report, and a determination was issued on 17 February 20 upholding the findings in the original report.
The Claimant lodged his complaint with workplace relations commission 3rd July 2020.
Summary of the respondent’s position
The respondent rejected claimant's arguments and they submitted substantial documentation to support their position.
The respondent submitted that the claimant’s formal grievance dated 4 October 2018 which was sent to HR and 24th of September 2019.
A formal investigation was carried out by the respondent on 17 October 2019 and the report was issued on the 20 December 2019.
The claimant then appealed to stage III of the grievance procedure and this was heard by the respondents HR director on the 29th January 2020 and an outcome was issued on 17th February of 2020, which upheld the findings from the investigation and recommendations.
The respondent did follow the principle of performance management process in respect of the claimant. The grievance procedure did not find that the claimant was prodigious by the delayed timing of the meetings and that it could not substantiate the claims made by the claimant in relation to a lack of transparency.
Findings
I find that both parties submitted substantial documentation to support their respective positions.
I find in dealing with the dispute under the following headings:
Timings.
I find that the original complaint was lodged on 4 October 2018.
I find that the “grandfather” approach which used to try and resolve the dispute.
I find that while the respondents HR did not receive the complaint until 24 September 2019, I find the claimant submitted details of meetings that took place during 2019 with the respondents’ representatives and I fail to understand, when they knew the issue had not been resolved, why the complaint had not been referred to respondents HR.
I find this process took almost 12 months which is unacceptable.
I find that when the respondents Hr received the complaint on the 24th September an investigation commenced, and an outcome was issued on 20 December 2019. I find the recommendations contained were appealed by the claimant and an outcome was issued on 17 February 20.
I find the process from the 24th of September to 17th of February 20, was completed within reasonable time frame.
Targets
I find based on the submission targets have been set 3 months after the respondent’s year had commenced.
I find based on the respondent’s submission targets are set as a two-way communication.
I find based on the claimant's submission no discussion takes place on targets.
I find no minutes of meetings or notes have been given to me to suggest otherwise that the claimant position is in correct.
I find based on evidence that the claimant had not achieved his targets in 2017/ 2018 and 2018/2019 years.
I find based on submissions submitted to me that the respondent has a coaching policy for improved performance (CIP Process)
I find the claimant did not reach his targets on 2 occasions and I find respondent took no steps to address this issue with him through this (CIP) process.
I also find that the claimant did not approach his manager for help or guidance which may have helped him reach his targets.
Evaluation methods
I find that there is a collective agreement in place between the Respondent and the Trade Union representing employees on bonus payments
I find based on examination that the size of the fund available for distribution is based on the performance of the respondent.
I find the grading structure for bonus payments are as follows.
Exceeds – where an employee scores as above on 6% of the overall weighted targets.
Meets. – Where an employee scores in the range of 90% to 105% of the overall weighted targets did not meet – where an employee scores below 90% of the overall weighted targets.
Progress will be formally measured by halve year and annual reviews. An employee may request the performance that it be reviewed by his/her line manager, whose decision and the matter will be final.
Conclusion
I find my overall view there is a lack of communication and clarity which needs to be addressed. I find in the investigation report there is a recommendation for agreed minutes of meetings to be kept between the claimant and his manager.
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation
Taking all the foregoing into consideration I am making the following
- Target should be set as close as possible to the commencement of the year.
- The targets should be agreed and documented based on two-way dialogue.
- The Manager and the claimant should engage in a constructive manner with agreed minutes on a regular basis.
- That the “CIP Process” be used to help the claimant achieve his targets.
- I award the claimant €1000 as a once offered payment and without precedent to any further issue that may arise for the delay in dealing with his complaint.
Dated: January 15th 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell
Key Words:
Industrial Relations act |