LCR22364

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

ROSCREA CREDIT UNION LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

DEIRDRE HOGAN
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. CA-00031134-001.

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 23 March 2020 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 13 February 2020 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-

“The Respondent applied a practical solution to difficulties faced when the appointment of a senior loans officer did not work out. This in effect resulted in no actual promotional position for which the Complainant could apply as there was no single position of Senior Loans Officer. The Complainant, was therefore aggrieved at the lack of opportunity to apply for a position which did not exist. I cannot find in her favour."

A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on the 18 December 2020 and 1 February 2020.

DECISION :

In all probability, this case would not have arisen if the Employer had informed its staff that what was in question was not a case of a promotion opportunity being filled by the assignment of two staff working in the relevant area but, rather, an enhancement in the work of two existing roles in order to meet a need in the area in question.

The fact that the Employer did not share this information gave rise to a grievance for the Worker in this case, (and, potentially, for her other colleagues), that is understandable from her perspective as a long serving member of staff.

The Court recommends that the Employer either engage with the Union as the representative of its employees or provides the necessary information to its employees directly in any future situation that could, potentially, give rise to this type of understandable misapprehension regarding its actions.

The Court wishes to emphasise that skills and/or performance assessments are for use only when relevant. Only the two workers in the relevant area were considered by the Employer for the enhanced roles. References to skills, in the course of the hearing in response to questions from the Court, were a cause of apparent surprise and concern to the Worker and were, in any event, by reference to the arguments made in support of the case for the Employer, irrelevant to the matter under consideration.

The references to skills were not always factually accurate and the Court notes that the Worker concerned holds a qualification on which some emphasis was placed by the Employer. It is unfortunate that the Employer did not appear to be aware of this.

While the Court can sympathise with the Worker’s perspective, it is the case that the roles of two colleagues were enhanced so that, together with a member of the management team, they covered work that needed to be done in the area and there was not a promotion post available for which the Worker could be considered. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the Court to recommend that compensation be paid to the Worker concerned.

The Adjudication Officer's Recommendation is upheld.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.