INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Ms Cryan
Worker Member: Mr McCarthy
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's claim that he was unfairly overlooked for promotion. It is the Worker's claim that he was led to believe that he would be offered a promotional position and furthermore he was purposely held within his position for the benefit of the Company while part of its business was in the process of transferring. The Worker's employment subsequently transferred to the new vendor however he raised an internal grievance before his departure. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim, arguing that his assertion that he was deliberately overlooked for promotion is completely unfounded. In line with Company procedure the Worker was ineligible to apply for internal roles as his position was in scope for transfer.
On the 23rd April, 2015 the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th July, 2015.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
3. 1. The Worker contends that he was purposely misled to believe he was in the running for a promotion.
2. The Worker maintains that he was deliberately held back in his position and was prohibited from applying for other roles for the benefit of the Company.
3. The Worker raised an internal grievance which has not yet been resolved after a period now in excess of fourteen months.
4. 1. The Employer refutes the Worker's claim that he was unfairly overlooked for promotion.
2. The Worker was ineligible to apply for internal roles as his position was in scope for transfer.
3. The Employer maintains that the Worker's grievance was investigated in line with Company procedures.
The Court understands the Claimant’s disappointment at being excluded from consideration for a promotional position because the role that he performed in the Organisation was in scope for transfer with part of the business. However, the Court cannot hold that the Company acted improperly or unfairly in taking that factor into consideration in making the appointment in issue.
Nevertheless, it appears to the Court there was an inordinate and unjustified delay in addressing the grievance subsequently raised by the Claimant through the internal grievance procedure. In that regard it appears to the Court that the Claimant’s sense of grievance at what occurred could have been addressed, and possibly assuaged, had the internal procedures been operated within a reasonable timeframe.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court has come to the conclusion that the Company failed to deal with the Claimant’s grievance with the promptness that could reasonably have been expected. The Court recommends that the Company should now acknowledge that to be the case. The Court further recommends that the Company should pay the Claimant compensation in the amount of €2,000 for the effects of this shortcoming.
This amount is not intended to be in the nature of remuneration and should be paid without a liability to tax.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st July 2015______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.