FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LEGAL AID BOARD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal Of A Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-052148-Ir-07/Eh
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant applied for promotion by way of competition in June 2006. The post which was advertised had certain eligibility criteria. The Claimant was unsuccessful. It is the Unions claim that the successful candidate was shown more favourable treatment. The selected candidate did not meet the eligibility criteria for the competition. Also, the interviewing board failed to notice that only one page of a three page managers assessment report had been submitted on the Claimant's behalf prior to the interview. The Company accepted that an administrative error had been made but maintains that this did not disadvantage the Claimant. The Company were not prepared to retrospectively demote the successful candidate as was sought by the Union.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 18th December, 2007 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"I recommend that the appointment of (the successful Candidate) should not be set aside.
I recommend that steps and procedures be put in place and strictly adhered to so as to ensure that the administrative error does not repeat itself.
I recommend that the Legal Aid Board should take whatever steps are necessary to restore the trust and confidence in the selection process.
I recommend that (the Claimant) should receive a payment of €1,750 in compensation for the upset caused by the administrative error"
On the 24th January, 2008 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd May, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The interviewing panel failed to notice that the selected candidate did not have the requisite minimum three years post-qualification experience as required by the Office Notice relating to the competition and as required by the Legal Aid Board Regulations on career Progression.
2 The interviewing panel failed to notice that only one page of a three page Managers Assessment report, had been submitted on the Claimant's behalf, prior to the interview.
3 The Claimant believes that there is a systemic bias and built-in prejudice against part time solicitors, in respect of their promotion opportunities.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company is satisfied that the Claimant had a fair interview carried out by a very experienced interview board who decided she did not reach the required standard for the position at that time. This was re-affirmed by the Company following a review of the outcome of her interview as requested by the Claimant.
2 The Company does not accept that an administrative error in respect of one candidate means that the outcome of the whole process should be called into question. The Company appointed the candidate who qualified at interview. It later came to light that the person appointed was qualified as a solicitor for around two and a half years at the time of the competition rather than the normal 3 year requirement.
3 The Company acted in good faith in making the appointment and completely rejects any suggestion that the appointment should be set aside, having particular regard to the fact that there were no other candidates from the 2006 competition who qualified at interview.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties. In the view of the Court serious errors have been made in the recruitment process with a failure to properly remedy these errors.
The Court endorses the ethos of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation but varies the sum of compensation to €15,000 to reflect the serious nature of the upset caused to a valued member of staff.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
21st May, 2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.