FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-080475-IR-09/SR
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns an appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No R-080475-IR-09/SR. Following the restructuring of the Teagasc Advisory Service in 2007 by an independant external evaluation, a number of new Posts of Responsibility were created. In June 2007 following extensive discussions competency based interviews took place for the new posts. The Interview panel was made up of an external nominee, a local Area Manager and an Advisory Development Officer Grade 5. The Worker concerned was unsuccessful in obtaining a new post. He appealed the decision the Interview Board's decision. It is the Worker's contention that he was marked incorrectly in relation to four categories at the interview. Teagasc's position is that the interview process was based on best practice recruitment procedures using competencies that had been agreed prior to the Competition. Following three internal appeals, the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation.
On 17th December, 2009 the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"It would require showing a serious defect with the operation of the selection process to justify overturning it and I am not satisfied that there was such a serious defect with the operation of the selection process. In such circumstances I cannot uphold the complaint/claim and accordingly it is rejected."
On the 9th October, 2009 the Union on behalf of the Worker, appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th February, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Worker was incorrectly marked in relation to four categories. During the internal appeals process the Employer failed to seek the views of the independent external nominee on the interview panel.
2 The awarding of the Posts of Responsibility was not only by interview but also involved presentation. This was agreed to facilitate long serving staff with experience who had not taken part in an interview based competition for many years. Given the content of the Worker's presentation, the Union believes it would be reasonable that any person who competently assessed it would have awarded him a Post of Responsibility.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Competition for the Posts of Responsibility was the focus of a major discussion and consultation process between Management and the Unions on behalf of candidates in 2007. It was based on best practice, marking structures and interview boards that had been agreed where necessary prior to the competition.
2 It is not possible for the Worker to claim his marks were low as when marks are examined in isolation they have no meaning in the absence of marks for the other candidates. The Claimant did not assess the other candidates at interview and therefore was not in a position to analyse the content and standard of their presentations and their performance at interview.
DECISION:
The post in issue in this case was filled by competitive assessment. In such cases the Court cannot form a view on the merits of an individual candidate vis-á-vis all other candidates and substitute that view for that of the designed selection board.
Rather, the Court's role is to consider if the selection process was fair and the result rational.
In this case the process was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of an independent evaluator and, in the Court's view there was no substantial departure from what was recommended and subsequently agreed so as to invalidate the process.
While the Court fully understands the Claimant's disappointment at not being appointed to a post, and readily acknowledges his professional and academic qualifications, it cannot hold that the result of the selection process was unfair or irrational.
In these circumstances the Court must uphold the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and disallow the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th February, 2011______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.