FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-087379-IR-09/JT
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court involves a claim by the Union on behalf of its member in relation to him being deemed unsuccessful in his applications for promotional positions. The Claimant has been employed in his current position for a period of 33 years and on several occassions has put himself forward as a candidate for promotional roles. For each application, the Claimant was unsuccessful in his interviews however he was positioned on selection panels for future roles. The Claimant was not selected from any panel during the validity of each panel and he remained within his position. The Claimant requested a meeting with Management to raise his concerns and question his failure in each application and furthermore requested the intervention of the Union. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 1st November 2010, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"I have considered the submissions and arguments put forward by all parties and I am of no doubt from the submissions made in the hearing that the claimant is a highly respected employee in the council and has an excellent record. However because of requirements and regulations of public bodies, interviews must be conducted by an independent interview board and unfortunately the claimant has been unsuccessful in his interviews. This is not the fault of the respondents.
However, given the claimants standing within the respondent's organisation I feel it is incumbent on them to advise the claimant in regard to his performance at interviews and to discuss concerns and presentation to interview boards in order that he clearly understands what the interview boards are seeking from a candidate who applies for a position. I do not feel that compensation or an appointment to an acting up position is appropriate in this case".
On the 26th November 2010, the Claimant 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 8th March, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the interview board placed unfair weighting on the allocation of marks in particular categories including education and training, experience and team working amongst others.
2. The Claimant previously undertook an acting-up role for a position which was later advertised. The Claimant was subsequently unsuccessful in his interview for this position.The Union contends that the Claimant's experience in the acting-up position should have lead to a higher rating in his interview results.
3. The Union is now seeking financial compensation or the creation of a second position for the Claimant.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All vacancies arising are advertised through open competition and Management asserts that the interview process is equal and transparent, as was the case with the Claimant within each application for promotion.
2. There is no automatic entitlement to promotion for any member of staff. All candidates are promoted through an independent and fair interview process.
3. Management are not in a position to offer financial compensation to someone who is disappointed with the outcome of the interview process and furthermore it is not possible to create a second position for the Claimant.
DECISION:
The Court has consistently taken the view that it cannot substitute its views on the merits of candidates for promotion for those of the nominated interview board. Hence, in the absence of irregularity in the selection process, or irrationality in the result, the Court cannot intervene.
In this case there is no suggestion of irregularity in the selection process nor is there any evidence upon which the Court could conclude that the result of the selection process was irrational.
In these circumstances the Court is satisfied that the conclusions reached by the Rights Commissioner are correct and that his recommendation is reasonable.
Accordingly, the Court affirms the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and disallows the appeal.
Finally, the Court records that the Claimant raised other issues at the close of the hearing that were not before the Rights Commissioner and are not now before the Court. The Court notes the content of the statement made. The Claimant is free to raise these issues through the appropriate procedures if he so wishes.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th March 2011______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.