FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : RTE COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE LTD - AND - MAURICE KAVANAGH (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. R-141706-IR-14/MMG
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a confined promotional competition conducted by the employer in 2012. The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 14 December 2014, the Adjudication Officer issued his recommendation as follows:
"My recommendation is that I cannot uphold the premise of the claimant and on the balance of probability determine that the interview and selection process of two supervisors in the technical operations area in November 2012 was fair and reasonable".
On the 13 January 2016 the employee appealed the Adjudication Officer'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 18 March 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The appellant was employed by the company since September 1981. The appellant submits that the interview and selection process for the position he applied for was flawed and in breach of the company policy as outlined in the staff manual.
2. The position the appellant applied for was Technical Supervisor which he covered successfully following a retirement for the period April 2012 until the position was advertised in September 2012.
3. The appellant submitted that the breach of procedures is at the heart of the problem and that on any independent examination of the process he should have scored sufficiently on the measurable criteria and succeeded in the competition.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employer advertised a confined competition for two vacancies for the position of Technical Supervisor. Six applications including the appellant’s application were received.
2. The appellant was informed of the outcome of the competition and notified that he was unsuccessful in November 2012. The appellant was offered feedback from the interview process which he declined to accept.
3. The appellant did not raise any concerns about any aspect of the interview process or the membership of the interview panel until after the outcome was communicated to him. The employer submits that there was no breach in the interview process as a whole.
DECISION:
This matter was referred to the Court by the Worker (‘the Complainant’) by way of an appeal from a recommendation of a Rights Commissioner (r-141706-ir-14/MMG) dated 14 December 2015. The dispute concerns the manner in which the Respondent conducted a promotional competition for two supervisory positions in October 2012. The Complainant was one of six applicants who was interviewed for one of the two ‘Technical Supervisor in Television Technology’ positions to be filled at that time. The results of the competition were published in November 2012, some three weeks after the interviews had been held. The Complainant was ranked third by the interview panel and was therefore unsuccessful in the competition. The Complainant was offered, but declined, the opportunity to seek feedback on his performance at interview. This continues to be the case.
Following the publication of the results of the competition, the Complainant invoked the Respondent’s grievance procedure. He alleged that:
•The interview board had been incorrectly constituted and did not comply with the relevant provisions of the Respondent’s Staff Manual;•The Complainant had been asked certain inappropriate questions during the course of the interview;
•Unfair preference had been given to another candidate;
•The marking scheme employed by the interview board was not fit for purpose in so far is it was not an accurate reflection of the Job Description and/or the Person Specification documents which had been provided in advance to the applicants;
•There was bias on the part of the interview board.
The Respondent has in place a three-stage Grievance Process. The initiation of the process was delayed for some months as the Complainant was represented at that time by a solicitor and there was a protracted exchange of correspondence between the Complainant’s solicitors and the Respondent’s in-house legal advisors. Ultimately, the Complainant chose to progress his grievance with the assistance of his trade union representative. The grievance was progressed through each stage of the process. The report from the final stage issued on 14 January 2014. None of the Complainant’s grievances or allegations were upheld at any stage.
Thereafter, the Complainant referred a dispute to the Rights Commissioner who convened a hearing on 17 June 2014. The Rights Commissioner recommended that the Complainant should accept that “the interview process was conducted fairly and appropriately within the particular circumstances.” Accordingly, he dismissed the complaint.
The Court received detailed written and oral submissions in relation to this dispute, supplemented by a considerable volume of documentation from both sides. Having given detailed consideration to the foregoing, the Court sees no reason to disturb the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation. Accordingly that recommendation stands.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
LS______________________
11 April 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.