FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : AN POST DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No’s: ADJ-00023961, CA-00030519/001.
2.The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 11 May 2020 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. DECISION: The worker is employed as a Working Leader and has appealed three matters to the Labour Court. Protocol of Engagement A review of the protocol was supposed to take place after one year but did not happen. The Worker is seeking a review of the protocol of engagement, as agreed. The Employer accepts that no review took place. The Worker was absent on sick leave for a protracted period and subsequently in 2021 took up a role in another location. It submits that as the Worker no longer works in the same location with the individuals concerned, the protocol of engagement has no further application. The Protocol of Engagement was implemented to help address interactions between colleagues. In the Court’s view, in light of the fact that the Worker has since moved location and no longer works in the same delivery centre with the colleagues concerned, the necessity to have such a protocol in place no longer arises. In these set of circumstance, the Court sees no merit in conducting a review exercise, and so does not find in favour of the Worker’s claim. Investigation Process The Employer submitted that a meeting was conducted with the Worker and his union into his concerns about the investigation process, following which a review was conducted into how the Worker’s complaint was initially investigated. The Employer accepts that the initial complaint was not dealt with in line with best practice and that delays in progressing that investigation should not have occurred. However, the outcome of that investigation remained unchanged and was upheld. The Employer submits that matter has been fully dealt with and should be closed. The Court has carefully reviewed the documentation submitted by both parties. It is clear to the Court that the investigation process has been a protracted one for the Worker and has caused him stress and anxiety. However, the Court is satisfied that the matter has been the subject of a full review and investigation. In these circumstances, the Court does not find in favour of the Worker’s claim that the matter be re-opened for investigation. Acting Up Role The Worker accepts that he could not act up to the DSM role while the investigation was ongoing, however, that investigation concluded in November 2018. The Worker seeks compensation for the period he did not act up between 2018 and 2020. It is accepted by the employer that another Worker was appointed to the acting DSM role while the investigation was underway. It submits that outside of that period, the Worker was absent from work for a lengthy period and had refused on occasion to undertake acting up duties. In such circumstances, no entitlement to act up arises. The Worker clarified to the Court that he had refused to act up on one occasion only. The Court was provided with details of occasions when the Worker acted up in the period from 2017 to 2020, both before and after the investigation was conducted. It is clear to the Court that the Worker undertook acting up duties during this period. An acting up payment is made to a Worker, when acting up duties are undertaken. No entitlement to payment for acting up duties arises where that work is not undertaken. In these circumstances, the Court does not find in favour of the Worker’s claim. The Court so recommends.
NOTE |
