LCR23321

CD/25/671

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No.: ADJ-00055874 (CA-00068057 IR - SC - 00003551)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 24 October 2025 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 18 August 2026.

Page 1

DECISION:

The matter before the Court concerns a dispute about the non-application of an incremental pay credit to a worker.

Summary of Worker’s Position

The Employer withheld a pay increment due to the Worker on 3 October 2023. The reasons given for the decision to withhold the increment largely related to his timekeeping. The Worker at the time was in receipt of a written warning for poor time keeping. Withholding the increment primarily based on his timekeeping effectively constituted an additional sanction devoid of due process and was therefore unfair.

The decision to withhold the increment was made in breach of Circular 9/1987, regarding the payment of increments in the public sector. The Worker was not advised in good time of any perceived performance deficiencies that might affect his increment. Although he had previously experienced time keeping difficulties, these had never affected payment of his increments. The decision to withhold the increment was made by a line manager who did not have the seniority required to appraise performance. Due to interpersonal issues between the worker and his line manager, that manager should have no played no role in the appraisal. The Employer placed undue emphasis on the Worker’s timekeeping. Further justifications given for withholding the increment were spurious at best. There was no assessment of the Worker’s strengths. The Circular requires incremental certificates to be circulated at least a month before the due date, yet the Worker was informed of that matter over a month late. The Employer did not apply its policies fairly or consistently.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The procedure applied to determine the Worker’s suitability for the award of an increment was compliant with the established protocols set out in Circular 9/19/87 and internal Gallery procedures. The award of an increment is based on satisfactory service for the period in question, as provided in Sections 2 and 3 of the relevant circular which states: - “As a general rule, increments are granted annually, provided an officer's services are satisfactory. The onus is on individual officers to show that their performance during the year merits an increment. It follows that officers are not entitled to any prior formal warning of a possible deferral of an increment.”

The decision to withhold the increment due to underperformance was made on objective grounds. The Worker’s line manager identified ongoing performance issues. He noted thirteen lateness incidents, twelve failures to clock in, breaches of the mobile phone SOP and a refusal to participate in a performance improvement plan. The Worker did not dispute the breaches. Management made several interventions to address these issues and improve the Worker's performance. The decision to withhold the increment was determined by senior and suitable management, as the decision was subject to review by the Divisional Director, Head of Department and Head of HR and Employer Relations. The Worker raised no objections to the involvement of those individuals in the decision to withhold the increment.

The Worker appealed the decision. That matter was reviewed by a senior member of management, who considered all factors. The appeal was not upheld. The decision to withhold the workers increment was appropriate and proportionate. An objective decision-making process was followed. The decision complied with established procedures and processes.

Recommendation

The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made by both parties at the hearing.

Page 2

The Court does not accept the contention that withholding the Worker’s increment in 2023 amounted to a “double sanction” for poor timekeeping. The disciplinary sanction for poor timekeeping was a separate matter. The Court heard that sanction issued sometime after the Employer made the decision to withhold the increment.

The Court granting of an annual increment is not a guaranteed entitlement, as it is subject to an assessment of a Worker’s performance. In this case, the employer set out objective grounds as to why it deemed the Worker’s performance to be unsatisfactory. Those grounds were unchallenged.

The Court does not support the assertion that the Employer’s actions were unfair or breached the terms of the Circular. The Employer identified several performance issues. The Employer made several interventions to address the issues and improve the Worker’s performance. The line manager’s decision to withhold the increment was subject to review by more senior management.

Good practice dictates that an employer makes a worker aware that underperformance issues may lead to the withholding of an annual increment. Notwithstanding that fact, the Court is of the view that the decision by the Employer to withhold the annual increment for 2023 was made in line with the established procedures and adhered to the requirements of the relevant applicable Circular.

In light of the above, the Court can find no basis for concession of the Worker’s claim.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
ÁM	______________________
27th August 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.

Page 3