LCR22256

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No ADJ-00021763

BACKGROUND:

2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 18 March 2020 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation

• “I can find no merit in this complaint and my recommendation is that it is not well founded'.

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 20 April 2020 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3 September 2020.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

The Employer's application of procedures surrounding the promotional round in 2012 was flawed, unfair and arbitrary in nature. The Employer did not abide by agreed procedures and applied arbitrary restrictions.

In this case, the procedures were breached and subverted by the Employer on so many occasions as to be manifestly unfair towards the Claimant.

The Employer repeatedly undermined the agreed procedures and their application of those procedures was flawed. Therefore, these acts placed the Worker at a significant disadvantage both financially and in academic standing.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

The Worker was not discriminated against on any ground nor has he demonstrated or identified any procedural concerns in the process. Furthermore, had he identified any procedural concerns he had the opportunity to appeal the decision but he never did so.

There was no breach of the Respondent’s procedures in relation to the Worker’s application for promotion or any other applicant, including the supposed comparator.

Candidates are judged against predetermined objective criteria solely on the basis of evidence disclosed in their application. The Worker’s application was decided upon solely by reference to the published criteria and the members of the FRP (2 of which were external assessors) came to the conclusion that the Worker did not meet the standard necessary to warrant eligibility for promotion.

A three year delay in making a claim on an issue that is eight years old brings into question the credibility of such a claim.





DECISION :

In this case, the Claimant argues that there were procedural deficiencies in a promotion competition that took place in 2012.

The Court believes that some considerable and meaningful explanation regarding the delay in bringing such a claim is required of the Claimant before the Court could be expected to recommend that his employer be compelled to have an independent review undertaken of a competition that took place a full eight years before the matter was brought to the Court.

At the very least, the Claimant might have been expected to make his case in 2015 when, he says, certain relevant information came to his attention for the first time.

The fact is that no adequate explanation has been provided for the delay by the Claimant. Therefore, the Court is not in a position to recommend the remedies sought by him.

The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Tom Geraghty
NJ	______________________
23 September 2020	Deputy Chairman