LCR22253

1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No ADJ-00018767,CA-00024184-001

BACKGROUND:

2.This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation.

• 
  On the 19 March 2020, the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation: -
  • 
    “My formal Recommendation is that the Adjudication Officer letter of the 11^thJune (as set out above) and the Employer reply of 19^thJune (plus later Apologies) be accepted as a full and final settlement of this case.”
  
  The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 24^thApril 2020 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

  A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15^thSeptember 2020.
  
  
  WORKER’s ARGUEMENT

The Adjudication Officer failed to hold a fair hearing where the Worker was given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Adjudication Officer failed to declare whether the Worker's complaint was or was not well founded.

The Worker is seeking an amendment of her work records to confirm the Company do not hold any negative impression of the Worker and the Worker's ability to perform her duties.


COMPANY’s ARGUEMENT

The scenario which arose involving the Appellant was unusual.

The Company’s Operations Manual did not envisage or provide for a situation whereby an AQTV card could be returned to a CCM in respect of their current qualifications (A320 aircraft) whilst a separate training module (A330) was incomplete.

Four distinct written apologies have been provided to the Worker and her grievance was upheld in the Company’s internal process.

The Company have sought, and are seeking, a mutually acceptable way forward.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by an employee against the Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer Adj-00018767, CA-00024184-001 in her claim against her employer under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The dispute referred to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) concerned the employee’s claim that having raised a grievance regarding alleged mistreatment by the Company, it failed to investigate her complaint in a transparent and fair manner. She had asked for an apology, however she alleged that a suitable apology was not forthcoming. She alleged that during the investigation, defamatory statements appeared to have been made about her by employees of the company, however, it did not notify her of these comments, not did it afford her an opportunity to correct the company’s records. The employee sought a recommendation from the Adjudication Officer that the company should provide her with an apology and amend its records to confirm that it does not hold any negative impression of her and her ability to serve the Company.

The Adjudication Officer recommended that a letter dated 11^thJune 2019, written by him in an attempt to resolve the dispute before him (as set out in the body of the Recommendation) together with employer’s reply, dated 19^thJune 2019 (in addition to later apologies) should be accepted by all parties involved, as an equitable full and final settlement of the case. The Appellant appealed the Recommendation as she submitted that it failed to give an opinion on the merits of her dispute.

The Appellant submitted that the treatment she received by the company was due to /or linked with, the fact that she had previously exercised her legal rights by raising a grievance with the employer, she had referred a complaint to the WRC and had brought personal injury proceedings against the company.

The Appellant sought to have her complaint remitted to a different Adjudication Officer for a new hearing and recommendation.

Management sought to have the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation upheld. It stated that the grievance raised by the Appellant had been fully investigated by an independent manager in line with its internal procedures and her substantive grievance was upheld, four separate written apologies were furnished to her, from the Training Academy, from IFS management, and two written apologies from the most Senior Manager with overall responsibility for Flight Training in Aer Lingus. This matter has been fully explored internally, appropriate learnings have been noted and processes set out in the Operations Manual Part D have been changed as a consequence.

Management said that it had fully engaged with the WRC process and had responded positively to the efforts of the Adjudication Officer to bring final resolution to the matter and all actions set out in the Recommendation had been discharged in the hope that a mutually acceptable way forward could be agreed. It confirmed that the Appellant, who has 20 years’ service with the company, is a valued member of staff and is held in good standing with the company.

The Court has given careful consideration to the written submissions of both parties; to the lengthy documents supplied to the Court by the Appellant and to the oral submissions made by both sides. Having done so, the Court notes the following:-

• •the Appellant’s grievance raised on 3^rdJune and 4^thJuly 2018 was upheld following an investigation,
  •she received no less than four written apologies for the difficulties which arose following her failure of an exam module in a reconversion course for A330 aircraft training, two of which were furnished by the most senior person in the Training Academy,
  •a written assurance was given to her that there was no detrimental campaign against her by the company,
  •an acknowledgement that she is held in high esteem was furnished by the company,
  •the company acknowledged that learnings were made as a result of the complaints made and changes have been made to ensure that mistakes are not repeated and that in the event of comments being made as part of an investigation, that the other party has an opportunity to respond to such comments, and
  •no evidence of any form of victimisation was put forward by the Appellant.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Caroline Jenkinson
NJ	______________________
18 September 2020	Deputy Chairman