FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY AMICUS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Non-appointment to Foreman position.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's case refers to the non-appointment of the worker to the position of Foreman in the vehicle based workshop at the Curragh. The Union claims that the interview process and events since then were less than acceptable and that the worker was treated unfavourably from the outset. The Department rejects the Union's claim in all aspects.
The worker was one of five who applied for the post and interviews took place on the 4th of May, 2004. He was informed on the 31st of May, 2004, that he was unsuccessful for the position. The worker wrote to management seeking a copy of all notes made by the interview board, the marking criteria and the reason he failed to get selected. He received a reply in June, 2004, (details supplied to the Court). An internal investigation found that there had been no unfairness by the interview panel towards the worker.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th of January, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th of April, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was treated in an unfair manner at the interview in what was clearly an attempt to disadvantage his chance of being selected for the post.The panel went beyond the set list of questions by its own admission.
2. He had 35 years' service and had acted in the Foreman's position many times. He believes that with his experience he should have scored higher marks than he received.
2. The Chairman of the panel did not make his handwritten notes available. He did not assist with the worker's request for printed copies of the other panel members' notes.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The worker's complaints were investigated and the Department is satisfied that the interview was conducted in a fair manner.
2. The worker has failed / declined to give any specific reasons for his belief that he was unfairly treated.
3. The question asked by the interview panel (details supplied to the Court ) were justified and relevant.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given full and careful consideration to the submissions of the parties.
On balance and having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court is not convinced that the matters complained of by the Union had the affect of tainting the process with unfairness.
While the Court understands the Claimant's sense of disappointment it cannot find any compelling basis upon which it could recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th April, 2006______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.