LCR23110

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00049940 (CA-00061259, IR-SC-00002171).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 25 July 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. On 14 June 2024 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“I recommend that the Complainant accept that the competition is now over. He should accept that he has been successful in the competition where he could be appointed to the position should it become vacant by December 2024. I recommend that in order to compensate him for the delays and some errors in the process, the Employer offers him a sum of €3,000 as a gesture to close this dispute.”

A Labour Court hearing took place on 29 January 2025.

DECISION:

The Appeal

This is an appeal by a Member of An Garda Siochana (‘the Worker’) from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00049940, dated 14 June 2024) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Adjudication Officer had upheld the Worker’s complaint in part and had recommended he receive payment of €3,000.00 “in order to compensate him for the delays and some errors” in a promotional competition he had participated in. Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 19 July 2024. The Court heard the appeal in Galway on 29 January 2025.

The Dispute

The appeal as referred to the Court comprised two elements: the first related to the alleged mishandling of a competition run by An Garda Siochana (‘the Employer’) for the appointment of a Sergeant-in-Charge (‘SIC’) at a named Garda Station; the second – and related – element concerns the Worker’s contention that a period of eight weeks’ sick leave he availed of as a consequence of the impact on him of the aforementioned competition should be reclassified as Injury on Duty. The first element of the appeal was withdrawn at the hearing.

The SIC competition which gave rise to the within dispute was formally advertised on 1 June 2021. The Worker duly applied. However, it is common case that the Member whose transfer had created the vacancy was returned to post on 24 November 2021 although no steps had been taken to formally cancel the competition for a replacement SIC. In fact, interviews were conducted and the Worker attended for his interview for the post on 20 October 2022. It transpired that he was successful. The official result of the competition did not issue until 6 December 2022 and the Worker himself does not appear to have been informed of his success until 13 December 2022.

The Complainant attended his GP on 18 November 2022 “with symptoms of insomnia, distress and upset” which he contends stemmed entirely from the undue delays in concluding the SIC competition. The Worker attended again with his GP on 12 December 2022. He was signed off work for a total of eight weeks. He returned to work on 4 January 2023. An injury on duty application was made on his behalf in mid-December 2022.

An Inspector wrote to the Chief Superintendent in the Worker’s District on 2 August 2023 to advise as follows in relation to the Worker’s injury on duty application:

“For an absence to be considered in accordance with Code 11.37, the injury sustained by the Member must have occurred without wilful default or negligence, in the discharge of duty. While [the Worker] may have been successful in a competition for the Sergeant in Charge position, the position is not vacant at present, and he will remain on a panel for a period of two years. While it may have been his expectation that appointment to a panel would result in allocation to the role, it is the reality that this is not the case and the nature of the panels is that they are called upon as a vacancy is created. As such, injury on duty does not apply in this matter.”

The Worker was informed on 10 October 2023 that the above decision was final and that no appeal from it was possible.

The Worker’s Submission

The Worker submits that the manner in which the Respondent conducted itself in relation to his injury on duty application is fundamentally unfair, improper and in breach of protocol on several grounds, including the delay which occasioned its examination, consideration and determination of the application and its failure to provide cogent reasons for the eventual outcome. He is seeking financial compensation.

The Respondent’s Submission

It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the relevant process set out in the Garda Code and the 2010 Directive was followed in relation to the Worker’s injury on duty application and that the application was considered fairly and objectively by a senior manager in the organisation.

Decision

It is not the Court’s function to substitute its view on the merits of an internal process for that of the original decision-maker. Having carefully considered the Parties’ comprehensive submissions, the Court finds that the relevant provisions of the Garda Code were complied with from a procedural perspective but that the process was unduly protracted. The Court, therefore, decides that the Worker should be compensated for this delay to the amount of €1,000.00, in full and final settlement of the within dispute.

The Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
TH	______________________
22 July 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.