LCR22462

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CARLOW
(REPRESENTED LORNA LYNCH B.L. INSTRUCTED BY
BY BEAUCHAMPS LLP)

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY FARRELL MCELWEE SOLICITORS)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00022024

BACKGROUND:

This is a double appeal by the parties of Decision ADJ-00027183 of an Adjudication Officer in respect of the Worker’s claim to be given a permanent Grade VI position. The Adjudication Officer recommended that the Worker be reinstated on a promotions panel that had closed, that the life of the panel be extended to 2022 and that compensation be paid to the worker

DECISION :

Parties submissions

It is the Workers submission that she should be given a permanent grade VI post. In July 2017 she was appointed to a temporary Grade VI post to cover a back fill for maternity leave. It was expected at the time that the position would last until December 2018. By letter dated 21st November 2018 the contract was extended until 11th June 2019 eventually coming to an end in November 2019. It was the Worker’s submission that she should have been converted into a permanent position in that post. However, her temporary assignment was terminated, and the position was offered to another person on the panel. By letter of 30th June 2020 the Worker invoked stage one of the internal grievance procedure. By email of the 11t August 2020, she was advised that her grievance was not upheld. The Worker appealed the decision and moved to the second stage of the process and then to third stage of the procedure, but her grievance was not upheld, and she referred the issue to the WRC. It is the Worker’s submission that the Employer did not follow their own procedures in terms of not making her permanent in her temporary post and they did not follow the timelines set out in their grievance procedure. It is the Employer’s position that following engagement with the Union locally they had agreed a procedure for filling posts at this level for a two- year period and the posts were filled in accordance with that procedure. In January 2018 the Employer announced a competition to establish a panel for all part-time, fulltime, permanent and contract posts. The lifetime of the panel was to be two years. The Worker was placed first on the panel and a total of 18 people were placed on the panel. The rules of the panel were if you turned down a post you went to the end of the panel. The Complainant was offered a position , she was given time to consider it and to consult with her Union, she turned down the position and therefore in accordance with the rules of the panel she went to the end of the Panel. The panel expired in 2020 and since then all posts have been filled by open competition. The Worker was successful in such a competition and is currently in a fixed term grade VI position until Summer 2022. In respect of the issues raised by the Worker concerning the grievance procedure, it is normal practice for HR to be present at the various stages of the Grievance procedure, but they are not part of the decision-making process. In respect of the second issue raised by the Worker, the timelines in the procedure are indicative and that is indicated in the policy. The Worker was treated in the same manner as all other employees and there is no basis to her claim.

Decision
The Court having listened carefully to both sides finds that the Employer operated within the agreed procedures and on that basis cannot recommend that the Worker be made permanent in a Grade VI position outside of the normal procedure.

The Decision of the Adjudication officer is overturned

The Court so Decides.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sinead O'Connor, Court Secretary.