FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NORTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR12357/02/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Health Board in June 1999 as a Staff Officer with responsibility for all budgetry matters.He is currently Acting Section Officer (A/Grade VI) in Monaghan Disability Services. He claims he was not short listed for interview on two occasions when he applied for promotion based on the information provided in his application form. He claims he met the criteria specified by the Board.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. Her recommendation issued on the 10th of October, 2003, as follows:
"Based on the submissions made and for the reasons set out in the foregoing I recommend that the worker receive, from the North Eastern Health Board, a payment of €2,000 in full and final settlement of his grievances regarding the competitions referred to in his claim."
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 18th of November, 2003, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th of May, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The short listing process for the competitions was defective and unfair. This resulted in the worker not being given the opportunity to interview for any of the available positions.
2. The worker's qualifications and experience met the criteria for the advertised posts and should have given him a good chance of being appointed.
3. The payment recommended by the Rights Commissioner is insufficient taking into account the loss in career terms of not being allowed to compete for the posts.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board accept that the interview process could have been more customer service oriented, but it was always fair and impartial.
2. The worker met the educational qualification criteria for the competitions but did not fully meet the short listing criteria of three years relevant experience.
3. The Board was prepared to accept the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and to make the good will payment to the worker.
DECISION:
The Court agrees with the Rights Commissioner's conclusions that "the process used for short listing the positions was not open and transparent and was not satisfactory".
The Court finds it totally unsatisfactory that the claimant was put through the Freedom of Information route to obtain answers to his legitimate queries.
The Court also finds the Personnel Department's handling of this case to be less than satisfactory.
However, the Court agrees with the Rights Commissioner's conclusion that there was no guarantee that he would be successful in getting one of the positions if he had been short-listed.
Having considered all of the information before it the Court agrees with the Rights Commissioners conclusion but recommends that the payment of €2000 in full and final settlement of his grievance be increased to €12,500.
The Court, therefore, upholds the appeal and amends the Rights Commissioners recommendation accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
24th May, 2004______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.