Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Network Technician

An owner of the transmission & distribution electricity networks

Representatives

John Keenan Independent Workers' Union (IWU)

Rosemary Mallon BL instructed by  In house Solicitor

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00001811

25/09/2023

The Worker is seeking a recommendation that he be reassessed for the purpose of grade progression without any reference to, or consideration of, the use of the Employer’s online system for recording his working hours.

The Worker has been employed as a Network Technician (NT) since 3 November 2003.

He stated that in the context of the 2022-2023 portfolio grading review, he was advised by his manager that he would not be considered for a grade review because of his continued use of hardcopy timesheets instead of an online system. This issue had been raised during previous WRC hearings but it was denied by the Respondent that use of the online system would be a consideration in the grade review process.

In contradiction of management’s denial, NTs were invited, in correspondence from the Respondent, to consider “extremely attractive portfolio enhancements” and also advised that; “The portfolio assessment process is underway and will be concluded very soon. While the assessment process will consider many aspects of performance (Compliance with Safety, Qualifications & Approvals, Delivery of Results, Attendance, Customer Service) I want to clarify that your decision not to use (the online system) will mean that you will fall short of minimum performance requirement and you will not be successful in terms of grade promotion/grade progression”.

This correspondence was dated 11 July 2022 and addressed to an NT colleague of the Worker. The same letter was addressed to the Worker on 12 July 2022 from his manager. It was asserted that this correspondence suggested that it was centrally managed policy to exclude the Worker from access to grade progression on the grounds of his refusal to use the online system.

Given that the 5 headline/category performance criteria and expanded subdivided into 20 associated criteria in the grade review process do not include any reference to the use or non-use of the online system however, the Worker stated that he was effectively sanctioned by exclusion from grade progression without regard to his performance. Such sanction was not preceded by any form of, or attempt at, fair procedure. The Worker, by virtue of his membership of his choice of union, namely the IWU, was effectively denied grade progression because of his adherence to his trade union’s policy decision to maintain use of paper timesheets.

The Employer stated that the Worker had failed to exhaust their internal grievance procedures prior to the referral of the dispute to the WRC. It was also highlighted that the Worker was aware of how he could avail of the Employer’s grievance process because he accessed this process in the past.

It is well established that, before submitting a dispute about any matter to the WRC, to attempt to reach a resolution of the matter quickly, a worker must exhaust the internal procedures available to him in the workplace.  This was highlighted by the Labour Court in the case of Gregory Geoghegan trading as TAPS v A Worker (INT1014) where the Chairman stated,

“The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.”

As the Worker in this instant dispute did not exhaust the dispute procedures available to him, I find that I have no role in resolving the matter.