FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Non-Appointment into Promotional Position.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Iarnrod Eireann and the worker in relation to his unsuccesful application for the post of District Traction Executive. The worker contends that as he has continually provided relief cover when required, and has attained all the relevant qualifications to fulfil the requirements of the post, he should have been successful in his application. Management contend that the worker is suitably qualified to carry out the role but he was not successful in the competitive process for the appointment to the promotional post.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 9th May, 2011 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be ound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th August, 2011.
UNION ARGUMENT'S:
3 1 The worker has acted up into the DTE position whenever required for many years. On the basis of his qualifications and ability, as well as experience in the role, he should have been appointed to the post following the competition.
2 There were also shortcomings in the interview process on the basis that the panel did not have the expert knowledge required to adequately assess the suitability of the candidates.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The claimant is capable of carrying out the role but was not appointed to the post simply on the basis that the successful candidate was deemed to be more suitable after the assessment and interview process.
2 The competition was held in line with the Company's policies and procedures and by a panel who were suitably qualified to choose the most suitable candidate for the position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for the appointment of the claimant to the grade of District Traction Executive (DTE) based on his suitability, competency and qualifications. The claimant applied for the DTE vacancy in October 2010, having successfully been appointed to a DTE panel in 2004 to provide relief cover on a rotational basis when required and having acted in that role on a continuous basis from October 2009 until January 2011.
The Union submitted to the Court that the claimant was the most suitable candidate for the position on the basis that
�Given his acting role on the DTE panel and his qualifications, precedent has shown that he was the most likely to be placed on the DTE grade.
�No reasonable explanation was given why he was unsuccessful. The company have not demonstrated how the successful candidate was the more suitable candidate.
�No one on the interview panel had specialist knowledge of the position.
�The Union speculated that the reason for his non appointment was taken on a purely financial basis e.g. Rule 29B of the Superannuation Pension Scheme imposes an obligation on the Company to buy back service within the Scheme upon promotion of individuals from the wages grade.
�The successful candidate did not complete the necessary assessor-training course.
The Company denied the Union’s contention and stated that there was no issue of competency with the claimant but that the decision to appoint the successful candidate was made purely on the outcome of the assessment and interview process. It stated that the claimant was provided with feedback following the selection process. While the successful appointee at the time of his interview did not hold the assessor-trainingcourse NVQ qualification, he held an alternative one for “training the trainer” and on commencement of the DTE role undertook the assessor-trainingcourse NVQ qualification. In any event the Company stated that while the training assessor course NVQ qualification was a desirable qualification for the DTE role it was not an essential requirement. The Company disputed the Union’s contention re the Superannuation costs and stated that such a situation had occurred as recent as June 2011. Furthermore, the Company stated that the Operations Manager DART was a member of the interview panel and he had the specialist knowledge required.
Having considered the submissions of both parties and based on the assertions made by the Company, the Court is fully satisfied that the claimant is highly skilled and competent to carry out the role of DTE. He has done so in an acting capacity for a considerable period of time, and will continue to do so as the need arises.
The Court is also satisfied that his application for the DTE vacancy was processed through the agreed process, however, he was unsuccessful on the day. The Court has found no irregularity in the conduct of the competition, or manifest irrationality in the result, therefore 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. Therefore, the Court cannot find a basis upon which it could say that he should have been preferred for the disputed post over the successful candidate. That is a function of the selection board appointed for the purpose and not a function of the Court.
In the circumstances, the Court does not see any basis upon which it could recommend concession of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
1st September 2011______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.