National University of Ireland, Galway (Represented by IBEC) v A Worker (Represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 February 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 2 JIEC 0101
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DECISION NO. LCR21650 ADJ-00005199 CA-00007267-001
• Date: 01 February 2018
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/17/342

DECISION NO. LCR21650

ADJ-00005199 CA-00007267-001

PARTIES:

National University of Ireland, Galway (Represented by IBEC)

and

A Worker (Represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union)

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Foley

Employer Member: Mr Murphy

Worker Member: Mr Hall

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No: ADJ-00005199.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. This dispute concerns performance ratings received by the Worker as part of the Performance Management Development System (PMDS).

3 The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On 11 October 2017 the Adjudication Officer issued the following recommendation:-

• I note that the respondent has confirmed that the current Performance Improvement Plan is achieving its aims and that the Scheme is currently being reviewed. I recommend that both parties engage further in their review of the Scheme with a view to achieving an agreed position on how the matters raised through these instant disputes can best be remedied to the satisfaction of all parties.

4 The Union on behalf of the Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on 17 November 2017 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

5 A Labour Court hearing took place on 24 January 2018. The following is the Decision of the Court:

DECISION:

6 The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

7 This matter has a long and detailed history. Both parties accept that the Court does not have a role in ‘second guessing’ the assessments of the Claimant's manager as a result of the reviews conducted in 2015 and again in 2016 but nevertheless the Court is invited by the Claimant to set aside the ratings awarded as a result of those assessments.

8 The Court notes that the ratings at issue in the within matter relate to the working years of 2014 and 2015. The Court can see no practical implication for the Claimant in 2018 arising from ratings awarded in respect of his work performance in 2014 and 2015. The Court notes in fact that, for other reasons, no reviews or assessments have taken place at all in the University in respect of working years 2016 and 2017.

9 The Claimant was awarded a rating of 2 on a five-point scale in respect of his work performance in each of the years 2014...