FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CENTRAL BANK - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Filling of a Supervisory Post.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue in dispute relates to the filling of a supervisory position within the Print Section of the Central Bank's Currency Production Department (CPD) .The department employs approximately 22 Machine and General Assistants (M&GA's). A vacancy for M&GA Coordinator position in the Print Section was advertised in June, 2005. The position is a working supervisory role. A competition took place and seven M&GA's applied for the position. Six candidates were from the Print Section and the remaining candidate was from Mint Section. All candidates were interviewed.The interview panel consisted of the Department Head, the Deputy Print Controller and was chaired by a senior officer from the Human Resources Department. Following completion of the process a candidate who was working as an assistant M&GA Working Supervisor in the Mint Section of CPD was selected for the position. The Union claims that its M&GA members were told by Management that one of the Print Section personnel would obtain the post. The Union also claimed that the interview panel was not composed in accordance with the Bank's procedures. Management rejected the claims. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th July, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 11th October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Bank did not follow the correct procedure in the composition of the interview panel which should have included an external expert or a member of Management from another Department. This was not the case in this instance and the panel was composed of a member of HR Department and two from Currency Production Department.
2. The M&GA's were informed by Management that the vacancy would be filled by one of the workers within the Print Section.
3. The Union believes that the post should be re-advertised and filled in accordance with the assurances and procedures as outlined. In the event that the Court does not recommend in favour of the Union's claim each of the unsuccessful candidates should receive compensation in excess of the €7,000 that was awarded to a worker in a similar situation (LCR 16796 refers).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The interview panel appointed for the M&GA Coordinator competition was in accordance with the Bank's procedures. In practice in CPD, over the past eight years a range of competitions have been held where the interview panel has been composed of two senior members of CPD together with a senior member of the HR Department.
2. Management did not indicate to staff that the Bank would operate a 'closed' competition which would be confined to a particular group of M&GA's within the area of the Currency Production Department. Management did say that the competition would be internal to the Bank. Accordingly the Staff Notice was circulated throughout the currency centre. Currency Management could not place such a restriction on the filling of a vacancy as it would be unfair to other suitably qualified M&GA's in the department.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that there is a difference of recollection between the parties as to what was stated in relation to the pool from which the vacancy at issue would be filled. However, the advertisement for the job did not indicate that it was confined to any particular group and appeared to be open to any internal candidate who possessed the requisite qualifications. Moreover, there was no formal agreement in place which would have required the competition to be confined to the group associated with the current claim.
The Court further notes that the make-up of the interview board was notified to candidates in advance of the interviews. No objection was taken to its composition.
In the absence of clear unfairness in the selection procedures or manifest irrationality in the result, it would be inappropriate for the Court to reopen a competitive interview or to substitute its view on the merits of the candidates for that arrived at by the board appointed for that purpose. The Court cannot see any evidence of unfairness or irrationality in this case. Furthermore, the person recommended by the selection board was appointed to the post and the Court has no reason to doubt that he was the most meritorious candidate.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim. However, for the avoidance of similar disputes in the future the Court recommends that the parties should now discuss and agree clear and coherent criteria for the future filling of such posts. This should include agreement on the composition of interview boards and the arrangements for dealing with grievances arising from matters associated with the filling of vacancies.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th October, 2006
tod______________________
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.