FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALWAY / MAYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - AND - TEACHERS UNION OF IRELAND DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Institute has a student population of approximately 9,000 and 390 academic staff and was established in 1992 as a statutory body. In 2001, 22 new grade posts of Senior Lecturer I (Teaching) were advertised and a selection process begun. In all 32 candidates applied for the posts and sat for interview before a Selection Board resulting in the success of the 22 highest placed candidates. One of the unsuccessful candidates, however, took a case to the Labour Court, the Court issued Labour Court Recommendation No:17767 which states that "The claimant should be appointed to a Senior Lecturer 1 post on a supernumerary basis".This recommendation was adhered to by the Institute which caused 6 unsuccessful candidates, who had scored higher points at interview than the original claimant, to become aggrieved. They too are looking for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer 1 (Teaching).
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd March, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th September 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All six Claimants scored higher points at interview than the original Claimant who was promoted to the higher grade.
2. Labour Court Recommendation No:17767 states that no records were kept of the interview process and it appeared that the interview was unstructured with no agreed or objectively verifiable criteria against which marks were awarded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Labour Court Recommendation No:17767 refers to the specific interview between the Selection Board and the original Claimant only and not to all the interviews held over the two days.
2. The Institute accepted the findings of the Labour Court and the Recommendation was implemented but it did not accept that the criticisms were valid.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court arises following Labour Court Recommendation No: 17767 where the Court found that due to what it described as an extraordinary result of a competition for the post of Senior Lecturer 1 (Teaching) post, which the Court found to be unfair as it related to the Claimant, and recommended that he should be appointed to such a post on a supernumerary basis, with effect from the date on which he would have been appointed if successful in the competition.
Following the appointment of the above-mentioned Claimant to the supernumerary post, six candidates, who had also been unsuccessful in the competition in question, processed claims that they had similarly been unfairly dealt with.
Having examined the submissions and the evidence presented to the Court, it is satisfied that there were no irregularities with the conduct of the interviews in their cases nor were there any manifest irrationalities associated with the marking scores attained by them. The Court is of the view that the circumstances of the case the subject-matter of Labour Court Recommendation No: 17767 were exceptional and do not obtain to the interview / selection process as applied to the six Claimants herein.
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.
Consequently, the Court does not recommend in favour of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th October 2007______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.