FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IFUT) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. An appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-141862-ir-14/MMG.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns the interview process for the position of Associate Professor in Trinity College Dublin.
- The Union said Management failed to comply with due process in the selection procedures when the assessment criteria given to the candidates was changed on the day of interview.
The Employer said that the all candidates were assessed by the interview panel using the same and correct selection criteria at interview.
- This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 3rd June 2015 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- Both parties presented detailed and comprehensive verbal and written submissions to the hearing.
I have carefully considered the evidence as presented and I have formed the opinion that the claimant has not presented a valid complaint.
Whilst it is understandable that such a position as an Associate Professorship would not come up very often and therefore would be of immense importance to potential candidates I do feel that in general the overarching principle to adhering to the colleges policies and procedures were complied with on this occasion.
It is acknowledged openly that a set of incorrect information was initially issued to the potential candidates but it is stressed that this is not the criteria utilised by the appointments board but rather the correct procedure which was indicated to all the assessors as appropriate and correct for the appointment process as used.
I can appreciate the confusion that may have ensued as a result of this and feel that the college may have been more proactive in the dissemination of the appropriate information immediately following the interview process and to have organised a more formal debrief and feedback sessions.
However on the premise that the claimant is seeking retroactively to be appointed to the same level of post I find that this is not a valid request:- 1.It is not within my remit to make appointments for open and competitive selection processes.
2.That even considering natural justice and fairness in a candidate process there can only be 1 “winner”
- 1.It is not within my remit to make appointments for open and competitive selection processes.
- Both parties presented detailed and comprehensive verbal and written submissions to the hearing.
- It is my recommendation therefore that, as regrettable to the individual claimant that the outcome of the process was not her own appointment, that she accepts that the process was indeed fair and reasonable.
It should also be noted that there was nothing in the process or the aftermath that would demonstrate that the claimant was anything other than a valued employee and member of staff and that there is no stain or tarnish to her record, her personnel file, or indeed her own reputation.
- It is my recommendation therefore that, as regrettable to the individual claimant that the outcome of the process was not her own appointment, that she accepts that the process was indeed fair and reasonable.
The Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 8th July 2015 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd October 2015.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant believes that had she been graded as per the criteria given to the candidates, she would have received a score which would have deemed her appointable to the position.
2. The Claimant has suffered considerable professional damage to her reputation both within and outside the College and amongst professional colleagues as well as enduring a high level of physical and emotional distress.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is accepted by the College that the same particulars of marking criteria were mistakenly furnished to all three candidates who attended for interview for the post, despite this it is further submitted that the College Appointment Procedures for Associate Professor were fully adhered to and the correct marking scheme was applied to all candidates in determining who would be offered the position.
2. All three candidates were interviewed and assessed by a five person academic interview panel, which included two external assessors. The panel applied the correct selection criteria for Associate Professor in the scoring of all candidates on the day of interview.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of an employee against a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found against her claim concerning management’s alleged failure to comply with due process in its selection procedures for the appointment of Associate Professor in Palliative Care in June 2012.
The Rights Commissioner found that while there were acknowledged errors in the selection process and that the College should have been more proactive with the Claimant in the aftermath of the process, nonetheless he held that the selection process was applied in a fair and reasonable manner across all candidates for the post.
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, the Court concurs with the findings and Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and upholds his Recommendation. The Court does not uphold the Union’s claim for a compensatory award in this case. Furthermore, the Court recommends that the College should review aspects of its selection process to:-
- (i) Ensure consistency and transparency with regard to the assessment of candidates in terms of the criteria to be applied in respect of the post on offer.
(ii) Ensure consistency and transparency with regard to the points/percentage threshold applicable to determine whether or not candidates are successful at interview.
(iii) Ensure that appropriate wording is used to declare that a candidate is deemed eligible for the position applied for. Words such as “appointable and unappointable” should cease to be used due to the possible negative connotations associated with the latter.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
12th October, 2015.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.