Road Safety Operations Ireland Unlimited Company t/a Go Safe (Represented by Irish Business and Employers' Confederation) v A Worker (Represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 December 2022
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2022] 12 JIEC 2002
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION ADJ-00032492, CA-00043026 DECISION NO. LCR22694 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

PARTIES:

Road Safety Operations Ireland Unlimited Company t/a Go Safe (Represented by Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)

and

A Worker (Represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/22/199

ADJ-00032492, CA-00043026

DECISION NO. LCR22694

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

Full Court

DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell

Employer Member: Mr O'Brien

Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S)ADJ-00032492, CA-00043026

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Worker appealed the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 30 September 2022 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 8 December 2022. The following is the Decision of the Court:-

DECISION:

Background

3 This is an appeal by the Workers of an Adjudication Officer's decision. The Adjudication Officer noted that the Employer had made improvements to the process in dispute which should ensure fair procedure going forward and, on that basis, made no further recommendation.

Summary of Worker's submission

4 The Union on behalf of the Worker submitted that the process carried out in 2020 for the election of Forum representative was flawed and not as per the Forum's constitution. The Employer had a Forum in place which acts as a mechanism for monitoring Operators and Office staff to raise work related issues. In 2020 the Worker put his name forward as a candidate. There were two candidates in his area. On the 13 ^th August 2020 via email he was informed that the vote was tied at 6 a piece and that it was proposed to extend the voting until the 19 ^th August 2020 to allow people who had not voted and someone who was on holidays to vote. This was the first indication that the Worker had that the ballot was not a secret ballot as provided for in the Forum's constitution. The Worker raised these issues with the Employer and requested that the ballot be run again as a secret ballot. This request was rejected. The Worker then lodged a formal grievance which was not upheld. The Union on behalf of the Worker submitted that the Worker was seeking that fairness would apply and was looking for compensation.

Summary of Employer's submission

5 The ballot in question was held in the same manner as all previous ballots and was done by email. The Employer accepts that the recipient of the email ballot was a member of the administrative staff and...