Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Clerical Administrator

A Power Company.

Representatives

Marie Corcoran HR CONSULTANCY

HR Manager

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 - 00002698

27/05/2024

The dispute concerned the application of the employer’s Portfolio Review Process. The Worker stated that she had over 40 years of service and despite appearing to fulfil all necessary requirements had never been successful in getting an upgrade in her Grade.

The rate of pay was stated to have been €1,206 Gross per week.

The employment continues.

The Worker was represented by Ms Corcoran, a HR Consultant

It was maintained that, despite having in excess of 42 years’ service with the Employer, she had failed to achieve a Portfolio Upgrade. She was currently on Grade 4 and sough an upgrade to level F, the next highest Grade.

In summary she was at a loss to understand the rationale and practical workings of the entire Portfolio Upgrade Process in the Employer. She felt that it was hugely arbitrary. Staff were being evaluated/assessed by Managers who were largely ignorant of the Workers performance. In recent years she was effectively a “loan / geographically isolated Worker” outside of the main Local/District Office which reinforced her isolation from Managers who might be reviewing her. None the less in the recent process she had received a good review, which did not appear to have helped her, from her immediate Manager.

The Worker now felt completely undervalued by the Employer and this had had a negative effect on her overall health.

She had taken, unsuccessfully, a formal Grievance through all stages of the Employer’s Grievance procedures. The only remaining stage was an appeal to the National Industrial Council. However, as she was not a Union member, she felt that this avenue was not open to her and was seeking the assistance of the WRC Adjudication Services under the Industrial Relations Act,1969.

The Employer was represented by Ms X, Central HR Department, supported by a number of Managers. A full written submission was provided.

In essence the Managers were not unsympathetic to the Worker, on a Personal basis, in view of her very long service with the Employer.

However, the Clerical and Administrative Portfolio Review is a nationally agreed process with the Group of Unions in a very large national Employer. The Worker had been met with both formally and informally. A number of Managers who had been involved gave Oral Testimony in regard to their interactions with the Worker in this case. None gave a negative statement but explained that it was a competitive process and not all candidates were going to be successful.

She had taken a Grievance through all stages in the Employer procedures. The outcome had not favoured her. The final Grievance Appeal meeting decision was provide in supporting documentation. Here Ms Y had explained in detail her Appeal decision.

The only avenue now was the National Industrial Council.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the Parties.

The Worker was obviously a most dedicated employee with more than 42 years’ service.  She was well regarded by Managers.

However, in any Portfolio review there can only be a small number of successful candidates. This is the inescapable fact on this case.

The scoring system is across four key areas. The competition among eligible candidates is obviously intense.

The Worker is based in the Southeast of Ireland where vacancies for upgrades are obviously limited.

These details were fully explained to the Worker by meetings with her immediate Supervisor and higher local Mangers.

Regrettably for the Worker her case has been examined at all Stages of the internal Grievance procedures short of the National Industrial Council.

On a practical Industrial relations level it has to be recognised that interfering with an Portfolio Review outcome  and the agreed Grievance Procedures , save on the basis that a most grievous and demonstrated injustice was perpetrated , ( which was not the case here) would not be a good recipe for overall Staff relations.

In discussions the Woker stated that she had left the appropriate Union some considerable time ago. The Adjudicator asked the question as to why she might not consider rejoining with a view to seeking Union assistance in some form of personal “Red Circle” redress from the National Industrial Council.

However, it had to be noted that Unions would be reluctant to seek an accommodation for one individual, irrespective of very lengthy service, as to do so would likely encourage considerable follow-on claims from other disappointed candidates. It would also run the risk of being seen to undermine the agreed Grievance process.

 Accordingly, the Recommendation has to be that the Worker accept the Grievance Outcome.

Portfolio Review, Grievance Review.