FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER. DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim on behalf of one worker that he has suffered loss of status, humiliation and undermining, due to participating in a disciplinary hearing concerning alleged bullying/harassment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns one worker who commenced employment with the Company, in the capacity of Security Officer, in February, 1981 and who has carried out the role of Shift Supervisor for the past 13 years. Following on from an agreement between the Company and SIPTU union, a confined competition was held to fill 4 promotional posts of Security Supervisor. There were 13 applicants for the posts and interviews were held in March, 2000. The worker's application was unsuccessful. On his behalf, it is claimed that he failed to achieve one of the 4 posts because he had previously given evidence at a disciplinary hearing concerning alleged bullying/harassment, in 1996. He also claims that an appraisal form submitted to the interview board, without his knowledge, had adversely affected his chances of being successful in his application. The claims are denied by the Company on the grounds that the interviews were carried out in an open and fair manner. The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court, on the 30th May, 2000, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court carried out its investigation at a hearing that commenced on the 1st August, 2000 and which was concluded on the 24th August, 2000.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker failed to hold onto his supervisory status because at the disciplinary hearing in 1996 he gave evidence of having witnessed the verbal abuse of a colleague by another security officer. He has been victimised because he simply told the truth at that hearing.
2. The worker had all the necessary experience for the post in question. He did a satisfactory interview and there is no good reason why he should not continue in a supervisory role. Instead he has endured the humiliation of being, effectively, demoted. In addition, the manner in which he was informed by the Chief Security Officer (CSO) of his failure to achieve one of the promotions was unacceptable.
3. The appraisal by the House Security Officer, which was submitted to the interview board and of which the worker had no knowledge, contained unfair markings and remarks that were detrimental to his candidacy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was treated in a fair and reasonable manner in the interview for the posts. The board used set criteria for marking each candidate, which were focused on the requirements of the posts but which would have general application in other jobs. The fact of the matter is that the worker did a disappointing interview and, as a consequence, ranked joint sixth of all candidates.
2. The Company regrets that the worker feels humiliated or that he has lost status. He was not demoted as claimed but, in fact, has stayed at the same level with an increased salary. The CSO speedily and personally informed the worker of the outcome of the interviews to avoid his hearing the result by way of rumour.
3. The appraisal forms submitted to the interview board were only considered after the board had decided on markings for each of the candidates.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claimant argues that he understood that, as a Supervisor, he would achieve one of the advertised promotional posts, and at no time did he understand that he might, if unsuccessful, be in a position of being supervised, as has happened. He also claims that the appraisal form submitted without his knowledge to the Interview Board was prejudicial to his chances of being promoted and that his failure to achieve promotion was as a result of giving evidence in a previous case of witnessing verbal abuse within the Security Section.
It is clear that a possible outcome of every Supervisor having to apply for the advertised posts, was that some Supervisors might not get promoted and, consequently promotion was not automatic for members of the then Supervisory Group.
It was accepted by the claimant that the process for selecting persons for promotion, as agreed with the Union, was followed.
While the claimant's role has changed, as a result of the new structures, this was always going to be a consequence for any Supervisor not promoted. However, the Court noted that he has suffered no financial loss and has in fact increased his salary and received a £1200 lump sum lead-in payment as a result of the new structure.
The Court is surprised at the lack of transparency and clarity, as to the exact status and weighting given to the confidential appraisal forms supplied by the Company to interview panels. The fact that individuals have no knowledge of the content of such documents, do not have the opportunity to address the issues raised, and that there is no Company mechanism to ensure a lack of bias, is a major concern and the Court would recommend that this practice be reviewed.
However, the Court is satisfied, having heard the evidence given by the Interview Board members present at the Court hearing, that the non-selection of the claimant for promotion was reasonable and not prejudiced by the appraisal form or his role in giving evidence in a previous harassment case. The Court, therefore, does not recommend concession of the claimant's case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
14th September, 2000______________________
MK/MKChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.