FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SLIGO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Award of post of Head of Learning - Environment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker's case is that he should have been promoted from his current position of Estates Manager to the post of Head of Learning Environment at the Institute. He believes that the decision not to appoint him was flawed and irregular. The post of Head of Learning Environment came about in 2005 as the result of restructuring of two posts, namely those of Registrar and Head of Development. The post encompasses four areas - Library, Estates, IT and Student Services.
The post was advertised in January 2005 and the worker concerned was one of 28 candidates. Following an exercise in short-listing, six candidates attended for interview. Three of the candidates, including the worker concerned were marked equally and, following a second interview, the worker was placed third. In June, 2005, the worker appealed the decision which he considered flawed (details of his appeal were supplied to the Court). A Review Group met the worker in October, 2005, and concluded that it could not uphold his appeal. Following this the worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 11th of April, 2006, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Labour Court hearings took place on the 6th of March, 2007, in Sligo and 30th May, 2007, in Dublin. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Institute has failed to provide any material evidence to overturn the grounds of the worker's appeal. It has also failed to prove that the successful candidate was more meritorious than the worker concerned.
2. The interview process was not set up or conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Selection Process nor was it conducted in accordance with the Institute's interview guidelines.
3. The worker's appeal demonstrates that the Institute took the most narrow, unfair and discriminatory interpretation of the worker's application at every stage of the process.
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Institute rejects the allegation that the interview process was in any way unfair or biased. There was no lack of openness, transparency, fairness or objectivity.
2. The Review Group which examined and considered all documents and correspondence concluded that both interviews had been conducted in a proper and fairmanner.
3. The Institute acknowledges that the worker concerned was an excellent candidate. However, it chose what it thought was the best candidate for the post. The fact that he was not successful has in no way damaged his reputation as he claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter came before the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. It follows that the Court is involved in the investigation of a trade dispute and in formulating its Recommendation the Court must be guided by normal industrial relations considerations.
In dealing with similar disputes in the past the Court has taken the view that in the absence of irregularity in the conduct of the competition, or manifest irrationality in the result, the Court cannot seek to re-run the selection process and substitute its views on the relative merits of the candidates for those of the selection board.
The Court has taken full account of the detailed and carefully prepared submissions presented to it in the course of the hearings of this case. The Court is fully satisfied that the Claimant is highly skilled and competent in his field of expertise. He was undoubtedly a worthy candidate for the post at issue.
However, the Court cannot find a basis upon which it could say that he should have been preferred for the disputed post over the successful candidate. That is a function of the selection board appointed for the purpose and not a function of the Court.
The Claimant should again be assured of his value as a member of the staff of the Institute and the Institute should seek to assuage any concerns which he may have to the contrary. Finally, the Court would urge all parties to put these events behind them and seek to restore a normal and constructive working relationship into the future.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th June, 2007______________________
CON/MC.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.