FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MEDITE EUROPE LTD T/A COILLTE PANEL PRODUCTS (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation R-142872-IR-14/GC.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal ofRights Commissioner Recommendation R-142872-IR-14/GC.The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim that he was treated unfavourably by his Employer when he was unsuccessful in his application for a job. It is the Worker's contention that prior to the job interview he approached a manager seeking information and advice pertinent to the role. The Worker asserts that the manager made inappropriate and unprofessional comments to him. Furthermore, the Worker maintains that the selection process was tainted with bias when this same manager formed part of the interview panel. The Worker was informed he was unsuccessful with his application and raised an internal grievance relating to his issues. The matter was subsequently referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 14th August, 2014, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"I find that the conversation between the Claimant and the Manager was unfortunately timed, as prior to interview is not the optimum time to coach an employee or inform him of his shortcomings. The Claimant was rightly aggrieved that a negative comment was made to him just prior to his interview. However, the Claimant was scored on a number of items which contributed to the selection process along with other candidates.
I recommend that the company give him detailed post feedback and if possible set out a plan for the Claimant to equip him with the necessary skills and experience to help him to attain promotion when the next vacancy arises".
On the 19th August the Union on behalf of its member 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 4th November, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the Employer failed to adhere to the principles of Statutory Instrument No.146 of 2000.
2. The Union further contends that the Worker was treated in an inequitable manner by his employer when inappropriate comments were made to him by a member of the interview panel prior to the interview itself.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer asserts that the Worker was treated fairly at all times.
2. The Employer maintains that the selection process was wholly fair and transparent.
DECISION:
The Court understands the Claimant’s disappointment at not being appointed to the post in issue. The Court also notes the Claimant's anxiety that what he perceived as bias by a member of the selection panel may have influenced the outcome of the process. In the circumstances the court regards it as unfortunate that the comments to which the claimant takes exception were made. However, that in itself, does not invalidate the selection process, particularly in circumstances in which the Claimant did not raise any objection to the participation of that person in the process until the result of the competition was announced.
In these circumstances the court cannot hold that the selection process was improperly conducted. The Court has consistently held, in cases such as this, that its role is not to substitute its views on the respective merits of candidates for promotion for that of the designated decision makers. It is only where there is clear unfairness in the selection process or manifest irrationality in the result that the court could interfere with the outcome of such a process.
Having regard to these considerations the Court can see no reasonable basis upon which it could interfere with the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. Accordingly the appeal is disallowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st November 2014______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.