FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Employer’s failure to implement agreed procedures in selection process.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's claim that Teagasc failed to implement agreed procedures in the selection process for a Post of Responsibility (POR). The Worker concerned has been employed by Teagasc since 1972 and is due to retire in May 2012. He is currently a Grade 2 Agricultural Development Officer.
In 2007, a restructuring of the Teagasc Advisory Service took place. Following an independent external evaluation Teagasc commenced the agreed process of selection to fill 170 Posts of Responsibility (POR). The Worker concerned applied for several of these posts but was unsuccessful in his application.
The Worker appealed the outcome of the Selection Process and three internal appeal hearings took place as per procedures. When the Stage 3 findings were issued the Director's Recommendation was that the next post that became available within the Westmeath/Offaly Area Unit be kept in that area and advertised as the Public Relations and Events Leader post. This will not benefit the Worker as in order that the full benefit of the increased remuneration be reflected in his pension he would have to hold the post for a minimum of three years before retirement. The Worker is due to retire on the 28th May 2012 which is less than three years away.
The Union, on behalf of the Worker, is seeking to have the wrong done to him by the Employer in treating him unfairly in its breach of the competition procedures redressed by appointing him to a Post of Responsibility with effect from April 2007.
The issue could not be resolved at local level. The Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 30th November 2009, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th August, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The selection procedure for Posts of Responsibility took place in June 2007 (with appointments being retrospective to April 2007). The internal appeals procedure commenced in December 2007 and was completed in February 2009 when the Director issued his recommendation.The Grievance Procedure guidelines require a much shorter timeframe.
2. The agreement to create additional posts, the selection process and the lodging of the appeal predated the Government Moratorium on Recruitment, Pay and Promotions by a year-and-a-half.
3. The Third Stage recommendation by the Director to hold a further competition post moratorium completely ignores the fact that such a course of action could not, in any way, benefit the Worker, given that he is almost at retirement age.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management maintains that should the Worker be appointed to a POR position, the outcome of the interview process would be over-ruled and the Worker would be awarded a POR even though several of his colleagues received higher marks than him at interview and were not appointed to POR positions.
2. The Director recommended that the next fillable POR in Westmeath/Offaly be retained and advertised as a PR and Public Events POR so that the Worker as well as the other equally disadvantaged applicants be given the opportunity to compete for the post.
3. Management contends that Teagasc implemented the agreed procedures in relation to the filling of the POR positions in Westmeath/Offaly and that the action recommended by the Director of Teagasc is appropriate in light of the events that occurred.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by an employee based in the Westmeath/Offaly Area against a decision of an internal appeals procedure which reviewed his grievance concerning his unsuccessful application for Post of Responsibility positions which he applied for in June 2007.
The outcome of the Stage 3 internal appeals procedure suggested that the next Post of Responsibility position which became available within the Westmeath/Offaly area should be confined to the Westmeath/Offaly Area to allow him (and other staff affected) to apply for such a position. By letter dated 21st July 2009 the Director of Teagasc wrote to the Claimant as follows:
- “Since issuing my Stage 3 Report with recommendations, Teagasc, in common with all public sector organisations, has been issued with the Moratorium on Pay and Promotion. This Moratorium prevents Teagasc from filling any promotional vacancies or allowances, which of course means Teagasc is prevented from filling any future vacant POR posts until the moratorium is lifted, expected to be December 2010.
The recommendation made by me will be honoured in as far as it can be within the agreed sanctions from our parent Department. The next fillable POR within your unit will be advertised as Public Relations/Events to allow you and other staff affected to apply. It would be hoped that this would happen in advance of your retirement, however, the reality now exists that all staff will have very limited opportunities to apply for promotion type vacancies until such time as the Moratorium is lifted.”
Having considered the positions of both parties the Court can see no reason to vary the outcome of the Stage 3 appeals process and recommends that the Claimant accept the position as outlined by the Director in his letter dated 21st July 2009.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th September, 2010______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.