LCR23102

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00048060 (CA-00059068-001, IR-SC00001817)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 30 September 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. 

A Labour Court hearing took place on 21 January 2025. 

DECISION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The matter before the Court relates to a promotion process which involved the operation of a panel of candidates suitable for promotion and a reserve panel of further candidates also suitable for promotion. The worker was placed on the reserve panel.

That reserve panel expired on 31st March 2023, following a number of extensions beyond its original planned expiry date. At the point of its expiry two candidates, including the worker, remained on the reserve panel. The worker contends that, at the point of the panel’s expiry, vacancies for promotion existed at the time. This contention is not disputed by the employer. The employer however contends that there is no guarantee or undertaking given to candidates that their placement on a panel will result in promotion at any stage. The employer also contends that events surrounding the operation and expiry of the reserve panel were not unusual in the employment.

Both parties confirmed to the Court that no agreement exists whereby remaining candidates on panels or reserve panels will be appointed to any vacancy existing at the point of expiry of the panel or reserve panel. The employer submitted that the sequence of appointments from panels reflects the assessment of operational priorities at any given time. A total of sixty or seventy promotional panels were said to be in existence in the employment at the date of the hearing of the Court.

The worker contends that he was treated unfairly as a result of the employer’s failure to offer him a promotion prior to the expiry of the reserve panel on 31st March 2023.

In addition to the dispute between the parties concerning the expiry of the reserve panel, the worker contends that he has been treated very poorly in that, following the initiation of a grievance by him in April or May 2023, no substantive response to that grievance or to various e-mails from him to the employer was received over a period of months prior to his deciding to refer the matter to the WRC under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 in September 2023. The employer did not dispute that the delay in responding to the grievance or the mails of the worker was as described by him, and made no submission justifying that delay.

The Court notes that the worker seeks to have the employer appoint him now to the promotional position notwithstanding that a new promotional panel is in existence for appointment of persons to the promotional position, and that panel is due to expire in early February 2025.

The Court notes that 31 people have been promoted from that panel since its composition, and that the worker is placed at number 59 on that panel of 63 candidates. The Court considers that there is no reality to the proposition that the worker should be appointed to the promotional position ahead of candidates who are placed ahead of him on that current promotional panel.

In any event, the Court does not accept, in (1) the acknowledged absence of an agreement between the parties providing for appointment of persons remaining on panels on their expiry, or (2) any contention that the events as described to the Court in respect of the expiry of the panel at issue on 31st March 2023 were an unusual feature of the extensive operation of panels in the employment, that the worker has been treated unfairly. As a result of that conclusion the Court does not recommend concession of the element the claim of the worker for appointment to the promotional position.

The Court does however consider that the employer has failed to deal respectfully or in accordance with its own procedures in that it failed for such a considerable period of time following the lodgement of a grievance by the worker to make any substantive response to him. The Court can accept that this delay of approximately four to five months must have been a source of frustration to him.

For that reason, the Court recommends that the employer should acknowledge its failing and should make a gesture of goodwill in the interest of good industrial relations to the worker. That gesture of goodwill should be in the form of an ex-gratia payment of €1,500 which should be accepted by the worker in full and final settlement of the within trade dispute.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
ÁM	______________________
4th February 2025	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.