FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BORD GAIS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-118702-ir-12/EH
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker is employed by Bord Gais Eireann since 1983 in various positions but since 1988 primarily in the area of Local Authority / Reinstatement. The case concerns a claim by the Union that he was unfairly disadvantaged in the selection / recruitment process for the post of Local Authority Officer. The Company claim that they are entitled to appoint the best candidate to each and every post in a fair and transparent process and this is what happen in this instance.
The issue involves a claim by a Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 31st May, 2012, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:-
"I find that long service in itself does not make a candidate the most suitable...I am satisfied that all candidates underwent the same process and were asked the same questions...I am satisfied that all candidates were treated the same...Therefore I find that 'named' was not treated unfairly... I recommend that this claim should fail."
On the 21st June, 2012 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioners 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 28th September, 2012
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Appellant was appointed Reinstatement Officer in 2000 where he was responsible for Local Authority matters. He has gained comprehensive experience both from an administrative perspective and from practical 'hands-on' problem solving. This makes him the best all-round candidate for the position of Local Authority Officer.
2. A competency based interview selection process was used and not the previously used traditional interview method which was the norm. No formal training regarding the competency based interviews was available to the Appellant. As the successful candidate had participated as an interviewer on a panel and knew the ins-and-outs of the process, this would have placed the Claimant at an unfair disadvantage.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. While the Appellant did not receive formal training prior to the interview, as it just had been introduced, he was provided with a document 'Tips for Interview Preparation'.
2. Long service in itself does not make the candidate the most suitable for the job, in fact if the most senior candidate was appointed by default, it would contravene the Employment Equality Acts.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court finds that there is merit in the Union's case that the Appellant was disadvantaged relative to the successful candidate who had been involved in the administration of the newly adopted competency based interviewing process that had become standard procedure in the Company. However the Court also notes that the Candidate who came second in the competition had no such advantage over the Appellant. Accordingly the Court finds that the disadvantage the Appellant suffered in the interview process, was not the cause of his failure to secure his appointment to the advertised post. The Union's claim that he be appointed to the advertised position is therefore without merit.
The Court nevertheless notes that the Company disadvantaged the Appellant in the interview process and recommends that it pay him the sum of €3,000 compensation in full and final settlement of this matter.
The Court further recommends that the Company and Union address the shortcomings in the interview process that were highlighted in the course of the hearing to ensure that they corrected without delay.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
17th October, 2012______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.