SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Ms Connolly
Worker Member: Ms Treacy
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S). ADJ-00019606 CA-00025992-001.
2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On 3 August 2019 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- "Having considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.”.
The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 13 August 2019 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court Hearing took place on 27 February 2020.
This is an appeal by an employee against the Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer ADJ-00019606, CA-00025992-001 in his claim against his employer under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Union on behalf of the Claimant, claimed that the Claimant should be placed in a promotional post which he was unsuccessful in applying for and that this should be implemented retrospective to 31 October 2018.
The Adjudication Officer did not find in the Claimant’s favour.
The Claimant has been a bus driver and had been employed since 10th June 2002. He was on long term sick leave and was retired by the Company on ill health grounds on 7th December 2018. In October 2018, he became aware of four promotional posts for Automatic Vehicle Location Inspectors, advertised internally, which he sought to apply for. His application, albeit late, was considered and he was interviewed for the post, however, he was unsuccessful in his application. The Union claimed that his application was not treated fairly and others with less experience had been given the role. He did seek feedback on his application, however, he did not pursue a grievance through the Company’s Grievance Procedure.
The employer disputed the Union’s contention and said that his application was given due consideration and was dealt with fairly, through the normal process. Details of the desired qualifications, key responsibilities, key performance indicators, and competencies for the posts were supplied to the Court. The employer submitted that while there were no specific qualifications required for the role, the Claimant would have met some of the criteria required. The employer said that the Claimant had been an excellent worker however, due to his medical condition, the Chief Medical Officer had retired him on ill health grounds.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court notes that the Claimant was not informed of the internal promotional vacancies while he was on sick leave and therefore his application was submitted after the closing date. Furthermore, the Court notes that he was not formally informed in writing that he had been unsuccessful in the competition and given details of how to seek feedback. In such circumstances the Court finds that the employer was remiss in its procedures. However, the Court can find no grounds to hold that the competition was conducted in an unfair or irrational manner and accordingly cannot find in favour of the Claimant’s claim.
In the circumstances, the Court recommends that the Claimant should be compensated for the failures in the process by a payment of €1,000.00 in full and final settlement of the claim. Therefore, the Court varies the Adjudication Officer’s Decision accordingly.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6 March 2020Deputy Chairman
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.