FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHANNON REGIONAL FISHERIES BOARD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Filling of a vacancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the filling of an Assistant Inspector post in the North Kerry area of the Southern Regional Fisheries Board in November, 1997, and the unsuccessful application of a worker for the post. The worker concerned had been acting in this capacity for some time. All such posts are filled by way of competition and an interview board was established for this purpose. The worker was unsuccessful. The successful candidate was not appointed due to a qualifications issue and the post was offered to another candidate who the Board states was number 2 on the panel. However, the Union claimed that the worker concerned had been informed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at a meeting in December, 1997, that he had actually secured second place. The Board refuted the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 25th of March, 1998. The conference was adjourned to enable the parties have further discussions on a proposal of the Industrial Relations Officer that the Board give consideration to develop / enrich the claimant's work which would "compensate" him for his disappointment while allowing the claimant to retain his allowances. These discussions were not successful. A further conciliation conference was held in March, 2000. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 18th of January, 2001. The dispute was received in the Court on the 18th of January, 2001. A Court hearing was held in Limerick on the 22nd of August, 2001, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker, having spoken to the Chief Executive Officer after the competition, was convinced that he was second following interview. The worker formed this opinion as a result of comments made by the CEO. The worker was astounded that, after the first choice was not qualified, that he was not offered the post, especially as he had acted as Assistant Inspector for two years without complaint.
2. The Union sought to have the new appointment postponed pending the resolution of the worker's claim, to no avail. There is no reason why an acting position could not be made until the worker's claim is finalised.
3. The Union is seeking that the Board appoint the claimant as from December, 1997, and that he be given reasonable time to prove himself in the position. The Union does not seek to discommode another worker and if needs be an additional Assistant Inspector's post be accommodated.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The recruitment and selection process was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the 1984 Staff Scheme for field grades. All candidates were interviewed and evaluated having regard to the requirements of the job, and the marking system agreed. The interview process was carried out in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Board informed all candidates of the outcome from the selection process. The worker was placed third.
2. The CEO, acknowledging that the worker was disappointed with the outcome, offered to meet the worker to provide some constructive feedback on his performance. However, Management categorically reject the claim that the worker was informed that he was second in the competition. The Board was surprised that he made this allegation.
3. The Board cannot accede to the Union's demand as it is inconsistent with the Staff Scheme and could not be granted on the basis of available vacancies and operational requirements.
4. Since the appointment of the Assistant Inspector the Board has made particular efforts to accommodate the worker and utilise his knowledge and experience in a manner which would be beneficial to him and the Board.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is concerned that a candidate who did not have the necessary service could emerge and be appointed from a structured selection procedure which included an interview board and a marking system with points being allotted under the four headings including Operation Experience/ Fisheries and Technical Experience/Fisheries. Clearly during the course of the selection procedure leading to the appointment the candidates service should have been ascertained, particularly in view of the criteria for the marking system. This has lead to the credibility of the entire procedure being questioned and the Court is of the view that this should not be allowed to re-occur.
In relation to the particular case, the Court is not in a position to pass judgment on what was said during the meeting with the claimant on the 12th of December, 1997, when the
Chief Executive and the Fisheries Manager were present or when the Manager left and the
claimant was present with the Chief Executive. However, following the second appointment when the original appointee was ineligible the Court is satisfied that serious efforts were made, both directly by the Board and through the Industrial Relations Officer of the Labour Relations Commission, to accommodate the claimant in the new team for the area and utilise his knowledge and experience in a manner which would beneficial to both him and the Board.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the Board, either directly or with the assistance of the Industrial Relations Officer, should continue to develop some constructive way forward with a view to developing/enriching the applicant's work while allowing him to retain his office allowance.
The applicant should also be assured that his future prospects with the Board were not damaged by the events.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd September, 2001______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.