ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002628
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Police Officer | A Police Force |
Representatives | A Representative Association | Internal HR |
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00002628 | 15/05/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Date of Hearing: 03/04/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)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 information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The Worker has been employed as a Police Officer since 2009 and was due to be promoted to the position of Sergeant in March 2022. He was informed however on 9 March 2022 that his promotion was being put on hold. He asserts that this was unfair. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Worker applied for the position of Sergeant in 2021. He was informed in early March 2022 that he was successful and was placed at number 106 on the panel. He was subsequently told on 9 March 2022 that his promotion was being put on hold due to an alleged breach of discipline. Despite being ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing on 22 March 2024, he has since not been promoted to the role of Sergeant. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer stated that a Worker cannot be promoted to the position of Sergeant unless the Employer “is satisfied that at the time of his appointment, the candidate is suitable and in particular fully competent, capable and available to undertake the duties attached to the appointment” The Employer stated in the first instance that the Worker was under investigation in relation to a potential disciplinary matter in March 2022 and that this process did not fully conclude until 9 May 2024. It was also asserted that the Employer was informed by their medical advisors on 23 May 2022 that the Worker “was unlikely to be able to render effective service in a policing role”. The Employer’s medical advisors subsequently contacted the Worker’s GP to seek medical reports regarding his fitness to work but no such reports were received. Although the Worker returned to work in September 2023, medical reports regarding his fitness to work were not provided to the Employer’s medical advisors as requested. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
In circumstances where the Worker has been cleared of any alleged breach of discipline and has been in work without issue since September 2023, it is incomprehensible that he has not been promoted prior to the WRC hearing.
In the absence of any reasons having been presented to me to explain his non-promotion, I recommend in favour of the Worker.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend in the first instance that the Worker be promoted to the position of Sergeant within five weeks of the date of this recommendation. If the Worker is not promoted, detailed reasons should be provided to him in writing for the continued refusal to do so.
While I also find that the Employer should either compensate the Worker or backdate the date of his appointment given the inexplicable delays in promoting him, I recommend that this aspect of the dispute be resolved locally.
Dated: 03-04-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|