LCR23198

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00053534 (CA-00065302)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 07 March 2025 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. On 27 January 2025 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation. “I recommend in full and final settlement of this dispute that the claimant get first offer on the next PSV vacancy arising in his region and that he be paid a compensatory sum of €7,500 compensation for the distress arising from the decision to revert him to regular policing. I believe this recommendation is consistent with the principles set out by the Labour Court in LCR21771, LCR2228, LCR21002, LCR21003, AD1234.This recommendation is specific to the unique circumstances pertaining in the instant case and should not be relied upon or invoked at any other forum.’’

A Labour Court hearing took place on 12 November 2025.

DECISION:

Background

This is an appeal by the Employer of Recommendation ADJ-00053534-CA00065302-001 of an Adjudication Officer in respect of the Worker’s complaint arising from his reassignment after eleven years back to regular policing duties. The Adjudication Officer upheld his complaint and recommended that he get the first offer on the next PSV vacancy in his region and be paid compensation of €7,500.

The GRA on behalf of the Worker submitted that he has been employed as a Garda since September 2008. From February 2013 to January 2024, he was attached to the Roads Policing Unit and his primary responsibility related to Public Service vehicles. The Worker was appointed as Assistant PSV Inspector on 6 February 2013 in line with the Garda Code.  The Worker remained acting full time in this position attached to Road Policing Unit until November 2023.

In 2022 a decision was made to advertise the Sligo/Leitrim PSV Inspector on a national level while in other areas it was advertised locally first, as had previously happened. When the post was filled in May 2022 by the successful candidate from the national competition, the Worker was reassigned to Road Policing and this became his dominant duty until November 2023, when a decision was taken to reassign him to regular policing duties. 

Initially the rationale for that move was a reversion to a five-unit structure within AGS, but this never happened and AGS remains a four-unit structure. The GRA submitted that the Worker has a unique skillset that could be best be utilised in the Road Policing Unit and he was seeking to return to those duties. It was their submission that the person who made the decision to move the Worker back to policing duties lacked the authority under the Garda Code to do so. The Worker initiated the internal dispute procedure looking to be returned to Road Policing Unit. The stage 1 hearing was held on 29 April 2024, and his grievances was not upheld. No rationale was provided for not upholding his grievance. The stage two hearing was held on 5 June 2024 again the grievance was not upheld but no rationale was provided for not upholding the grievance or for coming to the conclusions that were arrived at.

The GRA submitted that the Worker had no difficulty with the fact that he was not the successful candidate and is not seeking to be put into a PSV post he is just looking to return to the Roads Policing Unit where his skills can best be applied. The manner in which he was removed at short notice having been part of the Unit for eleven years was not fair to the Worker and the failure at each level of the grievance procedure to articulate the reasons for reaching the conclusions that were reached, just made the decision harder to understand. This failure to articulate the basis for the findings in the grievance process cannot be considered to be good practise or conducive to good employer /employee relations. 

The Employer submitted that the Worker was never told that his secondment to PSV duties in Roads Policing unit was permanent it was always clear that it was a temporary arrangement, and he could have no reasonable expectation of a permanent assignment.  A competition was held for the PSV post in Sligo, and he was not the successful candidate. As a Public Service Organisation, the employer is obliged to observe the general principal that appointments be made following a fair and merit-based competition.

It is the Employers submission that the Superintendent was within his rights to conduct a review of his resources and to re-allocate members to different duties. In line with the internal procedures the Worker’s grievance was considered but not upheld.  The Worker did not suffer any loss of income when he was assigned to different duties. While the period of time for the temporary assignment was unusually long it was still a temporary assignment.

 Discussion

 The Court gave careful consideration to the submissions both written and oral from both parties. While management will always assert the right to re-assign staff, when somebody has been in a position for eleven years best practise would dictate that there be some engagement with the Worker and their representative in advance of the move. There is an obligation in internal processes that the rational for upholding or not upholding a grievance is clearly set out and that did not happen in this case. Taking all of the above into account and considering what the Court understands was an exceptional set of circumstances, in terms of the duration of his temporary assignment, the Court recommends payment of compensation to the Worker of €8,500.  

Decision

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AR	______________________
03 December 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mr Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.