ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003222
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A worker | An employer |
Representatives | Peter Glynn SIPTU | Internal HR representative |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00003222 | 01/10/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Date of Hearing: 10/02/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker qualified to be placed on a panel for forthcoming vacancies. He indicated that he was only willing to consider vacancies in Cork. When a vacancy arose in Wexford, he believed that the position should be moved to cork and he should be offered it. He took a grievance to the employer but indicated that he did not think the employer gave his grievance arguments appropriate weight. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer established a panel for forthcoming vacancies. The worker was placed 10th on the panel. The positions up to place 9 were filled and although the panel was extended for a period of six months it expired before the position in question was filled. The position in question was based in Wexford and had always been based in Wexford. The employer noted that no business case had been made to move the position from Wexford to Cork and that the position ultimately went to a person on the panel for Wexford. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The worker applied to be considered for promotional vacancies and was placed 10th on a panel. He indicated that he was only interested in positions that arose in Cork. A vacancy arose in Wexford and the employee considered that the position should have been moved to cork and that he should be appointed to it. The employer caters for people working in various locations around country however it operates a panel system as is a normal employment practise. The worker only applied for positions based in Cork. This position was based in Wexford. The worker took a grievance and his dispute centred on what he perceived as a lack of weight given to his arguments. The matter was considered at first instance and on appeal and his grievance was not upheld. The facts in this case are that the worker applied to be considered for positions in Cork, the vacancy arose in Wexford, there was no business case made for it to move to Cork. It was assigned to a person who applied to fill vacancies in Wexford. The parties noted that the grievance procedure does not indicate what weight should to be afforded to arguments in a grievance. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that a business case, where it is being made, should be made in writing.
I also recommend that the employer and union explore the option of conducting a joint review of the grievance procedure.
I further recommend that candidates for promotional positions should consider carefully the locations which they indicate their willingness to work in the context of panels.
Dated: 12.02.25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
IR dispute – promotional panels – location choices – grievance procedures – weight of arguments for consideration in grievance cases |