FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES: HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE (NATIONAL AMBULANCE SERVICE) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY FORSA TRADE UNION) DIVISION:
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00030638 CA-00041097-001 A Labour Court hearing took place on 16 December 2022.
The matter before the Court follows the rejection by the Claimant of a decision by an Adjudication Officer that the employer should make a payment of €5,000 to the Claimant as a means to resolve all outstanding matters and grievances. The Claimant outlined to the Court that she did not wish to accept that proposition as she wanted to vindicate her good name. The matters before the Court involved complaints made by other staff of the employer against the Claimant and complaints made by the Claimant as regards certain issues including against other staff of the employer. She also made complaints as regards the operation of certain administrative processes and systems within the employment. The Court understood from the Claimant at the hearing that she felt she should be compensated now for the length of time the processing of all of these grievances has taken to date to resolve but that she was not, in any event, prepared to resolve the grievances she had raised on the basis of payment of compensation. She also outlined that a range of matters at issue involved complaints of other staff made against her and that these matters were not within her gift to resolve. In summary terms the Court understands that the Claimant seeks a Recommendation from the Court which would: •Compensate her for delay to date in addressing grievances but not as a means to resolve complaints she had raised against others or others against her. The Court understands the claim to be a payment which, if made, would leave all outstanding grievances unresolved and would require continuing processing of a range of grievances. •Backdate from 2019 to 2013 a re-grading / upgrading she had received as a result of an agreement with the employer following an earlier decision of an Adjudication Officer •Promote the Claimant to Grade VII in her current location / region on foot of a promotion competition conducted in 2020 which resulted in a number of offers of promotion being made to the Claimant in what she considered to be unsuitable geographical locations and which she refused. The Claimant seeks to have any such promotion to take effect from 2020. The grievances in respect of which compensation for delay is sought were not detailed in the written submission to the Court made by the Claimant. Similarly, that submission did not set out the formal grievance procedure, if any, under which any such grievance was pursued by the Claimant, when the procedure was initiated in each case and the agreed current status of any grievance which is contended to be unfairly delayed by the employer. The employer did list a series of complaints and grievances raised by the Claimant, many of which it contended do not amount to industrial relations matters at all and, consequently, contended that differences between the Claimant and the employer arising therefrom could not form a trade dispute within the meaning of the Act The employer disputed that any unreasonable delay had occurred in respect of any industrial relations grievance or complaint initiated by the Claimant under the grievance procedure but clarified that the COVID Pandemic had impacted upon its internal structures in terms of processing of grievances and that the processing of any grievances by the employer had been suspended pending the exhaustion of third-party referrals initiated by the Claimant which have resulted in this Court hearing. The employer held a similar position in relation to any complaints made to it by others against the Claimant. The Court established at its hearing that no appeal of any matter associated with the conduct by the employer of the promotion competition which is impugned before the Court by the Claimant has been initiated by the Claimant through the appropriate internal framework. The Court was unable to establish at its hearing that any shared understanding of the facts exists between the parties as regards the experiences of un-named persons who the Claimant contends had been treated differently to her in terms of a job evaluation exercise carried out in 2013 or since in terms of access to higher gradings and retrospective application of higher gradings. Similarly, no detail was supplied to the Court which would allow the Court to conclude that the Claimant has been disadvantaged by comparison with others in identical circumstances in these respects. The Court notes that significant reference was made by the parties to a national regularisation process conducted some years ago, but no basis has been put forward to suggest that the Claimant was treated unfairly in implementation of that national collective agreement. In all of the circumstances, and noting that the parties are required by the Act to be bound by the Recommendation of the Court, the Court Recommends as follows: •That all outstanding grievances (within the industrial relations meaning of that term which signifies something other than complaints as regards the operation of administrative processes affecting other staff and not the Claimant), including those which the employer has suspended in terms of processing pending the issuance of the decision, should be advanced to a conclusion internally by 30thMarch 2023. Any unresolved matters outstanding at that stage should be dealt with through the agreed procedures as individual rather than omnibus referrals. •The Court cannot find a basis to backdate an agreed upgrading of the Claimant to Grade VI so as to have effect from 2013 and does not recommend concession of that claim. •The Court can find no basis outside of the internal appeal mechanisms applying to the 2020 promotion competition to recommend interference with the operation of that competition on the submissions before it so as to promote the Claimant and to backdate such a promotion to 2020. The Court therefore does not recommend concession of that claim.
The Court so decides.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Orla Collender, Court Secretary. |
