FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pay claim for Grade 2 work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant commenced employment as an Agricultural Advisor in September 1979 with Acot (the organisation which subsequently merged with An Foras Taluntais to create Teagasc). He is currently on Grade 1. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by SIPTU on behalf of their member that he be placed on the relevant incremental point on the Grade 2 scale.
On a number of occasions throughout his career the Claimant had applied for Grade 2 positions. On each occasion he was unsuccessful. In November 2001 a promotion competition took place following which the Claimant once again failed to be placed on the panel. A total of 96 applicants were placed on that panel which ran from 2002 to September 2006.
The Union are claiming that the Claimant has been treated unfairly and unreasonably by Management’s refusal to place him on a promotion panel. The Claimant has an unblemished disciplinary and personnel record and has always discharged his duties with success, which has been acknowledged informally by his line manager.
It is Management’s position that the Claimant is one of a number of staff who was unsuccessful at interview in 2001.
A number of concerns were expressed by both Management and Staff in relation to the quality of the interview procedures. In 2002 a Joint Management-Union Committee was set up to analyse how the procedures had operated and make recommendations for their improvement.
The Claimant referred his claim to the Labour Court on the 10th March, 2006, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court’s recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintain that Management have completely disregarded the assessment of the Claimant's line manager which indicates that the Claimant has consistently surpassed his targets and generated an income that is higher than any of his peers.
2. The Union state also that the Claimant's line manager, who has served in that position for fifteen years, has clearly seen the Claimant as more than competent to perform and discharge the duties as a Grade 2 and has said that he would ''highly recommend" the Claimant for promotion to Grade 2.
3. The Union believe that the Joint Review of the interview process did not have access to nor did they base their findings on all of the relevant date which is credible and verifiable.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant's performance reports/ marking sheets and those of the other applicants were examined by the Joint Management-Union Steering Committee. In this regard the Claimant's concerns regarding the interview process have been satisfactorily investigated.
2. In their report the Steering Committee found that although managers had received training in the assessment of staff, some difficulties arose for the interview boards in interpreting and giving appropriate weight to the forms.
3. The decision of the interview boards is final and Management cannot alter or modify the result in any way.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that the interview board in this case acted properly in the discharge of the function assigned to it and that the outcome represented its honest assessment of the candidates. Against that background the Court would not normally seek to go outside the conclusion reached by the board. However, there is an absence of information and records concerning the basis upon which the interview board reached its conclusions. This, together with the other compelling factors which were alluded to in the Union's submission, indicates that the interests of fairness and transparency would best be served if the outcome of the process were to be reconsidered.
In the exceptional circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Claimant's suitability for appointment to a grade 2 post be now assessed by a differently constituted interview board using the same criteria as heretofore (including an assessment by the line manager). If the Claimant is found to be suitable he should be appointed from a current date, or such earlier date as would fully reflect the higher rate of pay in his pension.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th October, 2006______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.