ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031735
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Graduate Recruitment Administrative Officer | A local authority
|
Representatives |
| Keith Irvine Local Government Management Agency (LGMA) |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00042116-001 | 22/01/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00042116-002 | 22/01/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/06/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
In accordance Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings on 22nd July 2021. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 25th June 2018 on a fixed term contract under the Graduate Recruitment Programme. The programme provided for a range of work experiences and training under the Data Analytics Stream. He submitted two claims to the Workplace Relations Commission under the Protection of Employees (Fixed term Work) Act claiming that he was treated less favourably that comparable permanent employees in relation to competitions for promotional post(s) and in relation to payment of an acting allowance. The Respondent was a local authority. The Respondent denied the allegations in relation to less favourable treatment of a fixed term worker. The Respondent contended that, in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act, the Complainant was not comprehended by the Act, as he was employed on a training scheme. The Respondent further contended that in accordance with Section 14(3) of the Act the Complainant’s case was out of time. Furthermore, the Respondent rejected the complaints and submitted that no breach of the Act had taken place. Preliminary Issues: Issue 1 The Respondent submitted that the complaints to the WRC were submitted on 22nd January 2021, that the Complainant’s allegations were in relation to 2019 and early 2020 and that any issues raised in the WRC Complaint Form under the Fixed term Work Act before 23rd August 2020 were out of time. In this position the Respondent relied upon Section 14(3) of the Act which states that the Adjudication Officer “shall not entertain a complaint under this section if it is presented to the commissioner after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.” The Respondent pointed out that the Complainant had the benefit of legal advice during the processing of his grievance and that, in those circumstances, he should have been aware of the time limits for making a complaint. Issue 2 The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was recruited as part of a Local Government Graduate Recruitment Initiative and was placed on the Local Authority Sector specific graduate programme, undertaking an industry recognised accredited training course as per his contract of employment. (A copy of the contract was appended to the submission). The Respondent relied upon Section 2(1) of the Act which states that “Fixed-term employee” means a person having a contract of employment entered into directly with an employer where the end of the contract of employment concerned is determined by an objective condition such as arriving a specific date, completing a specific task or the occurrence of a specific event but does not include – (a) employees in initial vocational training relationships or apprenticeship schemes, or (b) employees with a contract of employment which has been concluded within the framework of a specific public or publicly supported training, integration or vocational retraining programme.” The Respondent contended that, as such, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(1) of the Act, the Complainant is not a fixed term employee as defined in the Act, that the Act does not apply to the Complainant and the Adjudicator cannot hear the case. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA – 00042116-001 The Complainant submitted that he was treated less favourably than a comparable permanent employee in relation to his conditions of employment. He submitted that having been forced to decline a conditional offer of acting made to him by HR in 2019, (this claim is the subject of a separate claim ADJ 00028301; CA-00036312) he proceeded to apply for the newly created permanent Staff Officer posts on 17th December, 2019. He submitted that interviews were originally scheduled to take place in March 2020 but that these were deferred to June/July 2020 due to Covid restrictions. He submitted that there were 2 new positions to be filled and that the initial filling of the posts was through confined competition. In his submission he outlined that he was placed third in order of merit on the panel and that two permanent staff members were subsequently appointed into these new posts between July and August 2020. He further outlined that when he became aware of who the successful appointees were, he knew that an existing Staff Officer post occupied by one of the appointees would have to be vacated. The vacancy in question was a long-term acting arrangement, in place to cover a staff member on career break. He stated, in his submission, that HR had advised him that he would not be considered eligible for any permanent posts based on the outcome of the above interview but that he may be considered for an acting Staff Officer post if such a vacancy arose within the lifetime of the panel. He submitted that based on that advise he expected to be made an offer of an Acting Staff Officer post to the position described above. He further submitted that when he enquired of HR, he was informed that a decision had been taken not to offer him the acting post, but instead to continue the short-term acting arrangement put in place following the previous interviews in November 2019, and that any new acting arrangement should then be offered to him as the next candidate on the panel. He submitted that the decisions taken at that time resulted in him being treated less favourably for the following reasons: · That the short-term acting post (interviewed in November 19) was intended to fill the new position of staff officer in Finance until that post could be filled on a permanent basis, and · That the above acting arrangement should have ceased once the permanent appointment was made in July/August 2020 · That the consequential vacancy arising from the permanent appointments should then have been offered to him as the next person panelled in order of merit He submitted that this resulted in a situation where a permanent staff member who was placed lower than him in order of merit in two successive interviews was given an extended opportunity to gain experience in the staff officer role and he submitted that at the date of submission of his claim (i.e.; 22nd January 2021) that staff member remained in the “short-term” acting position. He submitted that considering that there were only 2 permanent positions available and that he was placed third in order of merit, he believed that being in the acting role would have placed him in a much stronger position to secure one of the permanent posts. He submitted that he would face a similar challenge in a competition for a staff officer panel which was scheduled to take place sometime in 2021. CA- 00042116-002 The Complainant submitted that in October 2018 the Procurement Compliance Officer left his post temporarily after being seconded to another local authority. He submitted that interviews were held and a Staff Officer from the Finance Section was appointed as Acting Procurement Compliance Officer. He advised that he was not eligible at that time as he did not have the required minimum service in the local authority and so did not apply for the position. He submitted that the acting arrangement commenced circa January 2019 and was to continue until the staff member returned from secondment. He further submitted that after a period of 4-5 months the acting Procurement Compliance Officer, took a leave of absence/career break, and was not subsequently replaced; and he submitted that from May 2019 onwards he assumed the duties normally carried out by the Procurement Compliance Officer. The Complainant submitted that he was required to undertake training in the area of procurement similar to that undertaken by other Procurement staff in the past and that his duties included compliance reporting and attendance at regional and national meetings for Local Authority Procurement Officials. In his submission, the Complainant outlined that when the seconded staff officer returned in December 2019, he did not recommence his duties as Procurement Compliance Officer and was promoted to Administrative Officer soon afterwards in January 2020. The Complainant submitted that there was no change to his contract during this time but that throughout, he continued to carry out the duties of the Procurement Compliance Officer and that that arrangement continued up to the date of submission of his claim. The Complainant submitted that the Respondent never filled the vacant position of Procurement Compliance Officer and that from May 2019 onwards, he continued to carry out the duties of that role. He submitted that in normal circumstances an acting allowance would be paid to staff covering more senior roles, that an acting allowance had been paid to the permanent staff member who first covered the role up to May 2019 but that no payment of an allowance was ever made to him. In this context he contended that he was treated less favourably than a comparable permanent employee and he referenced ADJ-00009058 as setting precedent in this regard. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA – 00042116-001 The Respondent outlined the following sequence of events by way of background to the case: · that the Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 25th June 2018 under the Graduate Recruitment Programme, on a Fixed-term contract for 3 years · that on 12th November 2019 a confined competition was held for the position of Acting Staff officer and the Complainant came first on the panel for the competition. The Complainant was offered the post but declined and the post was subsequently offered to the candidate who finished 2nd on the panel, who took up the offer · that a further confined competition was advertised with a closing date of 17th December 2019 for 2 newly sanctioned permanent Staff Officer vacancies. · That it is normal recruitment practice that for newly created posts, confined competitions are held for appointment to those posts and any further posts would result in a new competition and panel for appointment to those further posts. · That due to Covid restrictions interviews for the competition took place in late June/early July and a panel was formed with the Complainant coming 3rd on the panel. The two permanent vacancies were offered and accepted by the candidates who had been placed 1st and 2nd on the panel. The panel was then expired for any further permanent vacancies and remained in use for any further acting appointments that arose within the lifetime of the panel. · That on 22nd May 2020 the Complainant submitted a grievance on the matter and following the examination of the grievance it was not upheld. The decision was appealed on 6th July 2020 and again was not upheld. The Respondent submitted that this complaint was lodged on 22nd January 2021 and that therefore the cognisable period of the complaint is 23rd August 2020 to 22nd January 2021. The Respondent asserted that the Complainant’s allegations relate to 2019 and early 2020 and that any issues raised under the Fixed term Work Act before 23rd August 2020 are out of time as per Section 14(3) of the Act. Additionally, and as set out under Preliminary Issues above the Respondent submitted that the Complainant does not have standing to pursue a claim under the Act based on Section 2(1). The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant was recruited as part of the Local Government Graduate Recruitment Initiative and was placed on the Local Authority Sector specific graduate programme, undertaking an industry recognised training course as per his contract of employment. In these circumstances, the Respondent contended that the Complainant was not a fixed term employee as defined in the Act and accordingly the Act did not apply to him and the Adjudication Officer could not hear the case. In the alternative, and without prejudice to the above position, the Respondent submitted the following: · That the start of the issues raised by the Complainant began with the Acting competition held in November 2019, where the Complainant was placed 1st on the panel and was offered the post but declined, with the post subsequently being offered and accepted by the candidate who was placed 2nd on the panel. · That this post was a short-term acting post, pending the return of another employee on career break. The employee continued on career break until they eventually resigned their post on 21st January 2021. It is the normal and accepted practice in the Respondent employ that employees who are appointed into acting posts remain in that post until the period of acting ends and that it is not normal or accepted practice to return acting appointments to their substantive posts due to subsequent competitions occurring after their acting appointments. · That following the competition in relation to acting post in November 2019, the Respondent had 2 new permanent vacancies which were advertised through confined competition in December 2019 and which the Complainant was placed 3rd on the panel. The 2 vacancies were offered to and accepted by the candidates who were placed 1st and 2nd on the panel. This panel was then expired for further permanent posts but remained in place for any further Acting posts that arose during its’ lifetime (but not to fill acting posts that were already filled previously). The Respondent submitted that they did not accept the Complainant’s assertion that the Acting Post should have ceased once the subsequent competition was held and a panel put in place. The Respondent submitted that this is not accepted or normal practice and once appointed to an acting post, those employees remain in that post until the period of acting is ended. The employee that was acting was in place to cover the employee on career break and the competition for the 2 permanent posts were not related to the acting post. The Respondent contended that the Complainant was incorrect in that regard. The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant regretted his decision not to accept the Acting Post offered to him in December 2019 and viewed that not taking up that post disadvantaged him in subsequent competitions. The respondent asserted that it was the Complainant’s decision not to accept the post offered to him and so the respondent cannot be held responsible for the Complainant’s performance at further competitions. The Respondent also pointed out that the Complainant had, in fact, been placed first in the competition without having previously been in an Acting Post. The Respondent drew attention to the Complainant’s allegation that he was disadvantaged compared to a permanent employee and submitted that this simply was not the case, in circumstances where the Complainant finished first in the Acting competition, was offered the post and declined the offer. The Respondent pointed out that in subsequent competition he was placed 3rd on that panel, in circumstances where there were only 2 posts. The Respondent drew attention to the fact that the Complainant was asserting that he would be disadvantaged into the future due to not accepting the post in 2019 and the Respondent asserted that the complaints cannot be upheld in circumstances where the Complainant made a decision not to take the Acting Post in 2019 and is predetermining future competition outcomes. CA- 00042116-002 The Respondent submitted that this complaint related to the Complainant’s allegation that he was carrying out “the duties of the Procurement Compliance Officer” and not receiving an acting allowance and that therefore he was treated less favourably than a comparable permanent employee in this instance. The Respondent rejected this allegation where appointments to Acting posts are only as a result of competition and where an Acting Post has been identified. The Respondent also rejected the allegation where the Complainant was carrying out his duties in accordance with his role and employment contract as part of the Graduate Programme for which he applied and was employed for. In their submission the Respondent set out the history of posts and appointments as follows: · The first relevant appointment to the post of SSO Finance took place in September 2017, with the appointment of employee A to SSO Procurement in October 2017, following a confined competition. · That SSO Procurement (Employee A) was seconded to other local authorities from October 2018 to November 2019. · Employee returned from secondment in November 2019 as Acting AO Control & Compliance following a confined competition · Employee A was then appointed on a permanent basis to that post following a confined competition in January 2020. · Employee A left the respondents’ employ in December 2020. · The post of AO Finance was supressed following consultation with unions and replaced with a new AO Control & Compliance post as referenced above. · A second employee (Employee B) was appointed Acting SSO Procurement in November 2018 following a confined competition · Employee B subsequently took a career break from August 2019 until they resigned their post in January 2021. · Employee C was appointed Acting SSO Procurement in August 2019 following a confined competition to cover a career break · Employee C was subsequently appointed Acting SSO Internal Auditor in November 2019, following confined competition. Employee C was subsequently appointed permanent SSO Internal Auditor in January 2020, following a confined competition. · Employee D was appointed as permanent SSO Procurement in January 2021 following an external competition and also to the post od AO Control & Compliance in December 2020 following an external competition · The SSO Procurement post was left vacant from November 2019 until January 2021 due to Covid restricted recruitment · The AO Control & Compliance post was left vacant from January 2019 until November 2019 pending sanction to regrade the post. The Respondent submitted that at all times appointments to posts, both Acting and Permanent, followed a competitive and fair process open to all eligible candidates and where the Complainant started in June 2018 and was not eligible to compete for Acting SSO post until competitions after June 2020 and where a panel was in place from October 2018 until October 2020. The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant was assigned some responsibility for the collation of information and preparation of reports, under the guidance of the assigned Procurement Officer and would have emailed those reports to the management team. The Respondent also submitted that the Complainant was invited to attend meetings with the procurement Officer along with other employees and both the report work and meeting attendance were considered commensurate and appropriate to the Graduate appointment and role, supporting the requirements of the Graduate Scheme to provide opportunities to appointed graduates to develop new skills and knowledge through a combination of on-site, office based and project specific experiences and learning. The Respondent refuted that the Complainant was carrying out the duties attaching to the role of Procurement Compliance Officer, where they contended the duties were being undertaken by the Acting Procurement Officer and the SSO Finance. In their submission the Respondent pointed out that at no time was the Complainant managing the performance of the Procurement Section, responsible for department or team goals or business plans, day to day running of the section, supervision or management of staff or planning, allocating or prioritising work. In fact, the Respondent asserted that there had been no change to the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment since his appointment to the graduate role and the duties and opportunities were commensurate with the graduate programme. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s assertions with regard to training were misleading, where an integral part of the Graduate Scheme was the investment in training and development in years 1 and 2 to allow the graduate to utilise these important skills. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant participated in formal and accredited specific education chosen as part of his development programme including induction training, skills development modules and a certificate in Procurement, which the Respondent suggested had been chosen by the Complainant himself. Finally, the Respondent submitted that in relation to Acting posts, the respondent can only appoint employees to those posts who are deemed eligible and that this was applied equally to both permanent and temporary employees and following a competitive process. The Respondent submitted that this had been the case in relation to all appointments of the Respondent in the 3 years since the Complainant’s appointment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA – 00042116-001 Preliminary Issue I noted that the Respondent considered the issue to be out of time on the basis that the cognisable period of the complaint was 23rd August 2020 to 22nd January 2021 and that the competition which gave rise to the complaint took place in November 2019, with subsequent competitions taking place in December 2019. I noted that Section 14(3) of the Protection of Employees Fixed term Work act states that and Adjudication Officer “shall not entertain a complaint under this section if it is presented to the commissioner after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of contravention to which the complaint relates.” I noted further that Section 14(4) provided for an adjudication officer to extend that period to not later than 12 months where the Adjudication Officer was satisfied that the “failure to present the complaint within that period was due to reasonable cause.” Having reviewed the very detailed submissions provided by both parties and from the evidence adduced at hearing I noted the following sequence of events: · That the Acting Staff Officer position was advertised on the basis that the duration of the acting arrangement was until the post was filled on a permanent basis · November/December 2019 – the Complainant was successful at interview for an Acting Staff Officer position in Finance (new post) · 17th December 2019 – the Complainant applied for a permanent Staff Officer posts (one of which was the permanent filling of the above new post) · 23rd December 2019 – the Complainant received the offer of the Acting position with the condition that he was required to resign from his Graduate contract in order to take up the acting post. · 3rd January 2020 – the Complainant declined the offer · Interviews for the permanent position which were scheduled for March 2020 were deferred to June/July 2020 due to Covid 19. · 22nd May 2020 – The Complainant initiated a grievance in relation to the Acting appointment · July/August 2020 - The Complainant was panelled number 3 in that competition; · July/August 2020 - no’s 1 and 2 from the panel were appointed to the permanent positions · 21st July 2020 – the final outcome of the internal Grievance Procedure issued · 22nd January 2021 - the Complainant submitted his complaint to the WRC. I noted that based on the date of submission of this complaint the cognisable period of the complaint is 23rd August 2020 to 22nd January 2021. On the basis that the competition which gave rise to the complaint took place in November/December 2019, that indeed the internal grievance procedure in relation to the matter concluded on 21st July 2020 and on the basis that no explanation was provided that would explain the delay in submitting the complaint I find that this complaint is out of time. CA – 00042116-002 Preliminary Issue 1 I noted that the Respondent considered the issue to be out of time on the basis that the cognisable period of the complaint was 23rd August 2020 to 22nd January 2021 and that the issue raised related to matters prior to that date. I noted that Section 14(3) of the Protection of Employees Fixed term Work act states that and Adjudication Officer “shall not entertain a complaint under this section if it is presented to the commissioner after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of contravention to which the complaint relates.” I noted further that Section 14(4) provided for an adjudication officer to extend that period to not later than 12 months where the Adjudication Officer was satisfied that the “failure to present the complaint within that period was due to reasonable cause.” Having reviewed the very detailed submissions provided by both parties and from the evidence adduced at hearing I consider the following sequence of events to have occurred: · That the post of SSO Procurement was filled by Employee A from October 2017 to October 2018 · That the post of SSO Procurement was filled by Employee B from November 2018 to August 2019 · That the post of SSO Procurement was filled by Employee C from August 2019 to November 2019 · That the post of Acting AO Control & Compliance was filled by confined competition in November 2019 by Employee A (on return from secondment) · That the permanent post of AO Control & Compliance was filled by Employee A in January 2020 but that the successful candidate left the Respondent’s employ in December 2020. · That the post of AO Control & Compliance was filled by Employee D following competition in December 2020. Employee D was also successful in the competition for SSO Procurement in January 2021, but it appears he never took up that post. · That the post of SSO Procurement has been vacant from November 2019 and remained so up to the date of the hearing · That the post of AO Control & Compliance was vacant from December 2020 and remained so up to the date of the hearing · 22nd January 2021 - the Complainant submitted his complaint to the WRC. I noted that based on the date of submission of this complaint the cognisable period of the complaint is 23rd August 2020 to 22nd January 2021. On the basis that the vacancies referred to in this claim continued to exist throughout the time of the cognisable period, I consider this complaint to be in time. Preliminary Issue 2 I noted the Respondent position that the Complainant was recruited as part of a Local Government Graduate Recruitment Initiative and was placed on the Local Authority Sector specific graduate programme, undertaking an industry recognised accredited training course as per his contract of employment. (A copy of the contract was appended to the submission) and that the Respondent relied upon Section 2(1) of the Act which states that “Fixed-term employee” means a person having a contract of employment entered into directly with an employer where the end of the contract of employment concerned is determined by an objective condition such as arriving a specific date, completing a specific task or the occurrence of a specific event but does not include – (a) employees in initial vocational training relationships or apprenticeship schemes, or (b) employees with a contract of employment which has been concluded within the framework of a specific public or publicly supported training, integration or vocational retraining programme.” The Respondent contended that, as such, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(1) of the Act, the Complainant is not a fixed term employee as defined in the Act, that the Act does not apply to the Complainant and the Adjudicator cannot hear the case. I noted the Complainant’s position at hearing that this was no trainee or apprenticeship arrangement, that while he had been provided with some training for the specific job he was doing, he had not been provided training for a career. He stated that any person could not be excluded from cover of the law for attending a training course and he opined that the exclusion relied upon by the Respondent did not apply. At hearing Mr. McKeown, Head of Finance, gave evidence of the various appointments to the posts of SSO Procurement and AO Control & Compliance. He confirmed that both posts were vacant for extended periods and he described matters as “fluid” in the department. He confirmed that the Complainant had assumed duties relating to the posts, that he had not been asked to do so but that the Complainant had taken on those duties himself. In response to questions from the Adjudication Officer Mr. XXX confirmed that he was aware that the Complainant was undertaking those duties and that he did not intervene to stop him carrying out those duties. I noted also, the evidence given by Mr. XXX and by the Complainant that the Complainant had commenced under the data analytics stream of the graduate Scheme and that he had undertaken training in Procurement. I consider that neither the work undertaken nor the training programme undertaken were consistent with the Graduate Scheme under which the Complainant was employed. Based on the above, it is clear to me that the Complainant was indeed undertaking duties well beyond the scope of the Graduate Scheme for which he was initially employed. In that context I consider that he had ceased to operate under the Graduate contract and was, de facto, operating under a fixed term contract rather than a contract as set out in Section 2(1) (a) and (b) of the Act. Therefore, I consider that he does have standing under the Act to pursue his claim. The Complaint I noted the Complainant’s submission that he had been undertaking the duties of the Procurement Compliance officer since May 2019 and that he continued to do so at the date of submission of his complaint. I considered carefully the detail of the various acting and permanent appointments relating to the claim and noted discrepancies in the details provided by the Respondent. In this regard I noted that the Respondent confirmed the following: · That the post of SSO Procurement was filled by Employee A from October 2017 to October 2018 · That the post of SSO Procurement was filled by Employee B from November 2018 to August 2019 · That the post of SSO Procurement was filled by Employee C from August 2019 to November 2019 · That the post of SSO Procurement has been vacant from November 2019 and remained so up to the date of the hearing · That Employee A was appointed to the AO Control & Compliance post on an Acting basis in November 2019 · That Employee was permanently appointed to that post in January 2020 following competition · That Employee A resigned his employment in December 2020 · That Employee D was appointed to the post of AO Control & Compliance in December 2020 following a competition · That the post of AO Control & Compliance was left vacant from January 2019 until November 2019 However, at hearing the Complainant was clear that he had been covering much of the duties relating to that post and that he continued to cover those duties as at the date of the hearing. The Complainant outlined the duties covered by him, duties that clearly could not have formed part of the Graduate Scheme. He clarified that he undertook meetings, both within and outside of the local authority in relation to procurement at regional and national level, and that he was responsible for a range of administrative duties attaching to the role. At hearing, Mr. XX gave evidence in relation to the vacancies, and the various filling of those vacancies throughout the period in question. It emerged from that evidence that Employee D had never taken up the duties of the procurement post. In addition, Mr. XXX acknowledged that the Complainant had undertaken some of the duties of the post, but stated that he had never asked him to do so. He stated that the Complainant had assumed the duties but he accepted that he was aware of that fact and that he had never sought to remove those duties from the Complainant. He also confirmed that the Complainant had never been responsible for managing staff in the department and this was fully accepted by the Complainant. On balance I find the Complainant’s evidence to be credible and consistent and, on that basis, I consider that he was in fact, covering the majority of the duties of the AO Control and Compliance from May 2019. It is a matter of fact, that the previous post holder who held this post on an acting basis was a permanent employee and did receive an acting allowance for covering the post and that this is normal and accepted practice within the Respondent employ. On that basis I find that the Complainant was treated less favourably under the Act and that this complaint is well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA – 00042116-001 I have found that this complaint was out of time and therefore it is my decision that the complaint is not well founded. CA – 00042116-002 I have found thatthe Complainant was treated less favourably under the Act and that this complaint is well founded. In that context it is my decision that this complaint is well founded, and that the Respondent should pay the Complainant an acting AO allowance with effect from May 2019 until the post is filled through a competitive process. |
Dated: October 5th 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
Fixed term; graduate programme, acting allowance |