FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : A UNIVERSITY - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IFUT) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No r-151672-ir-14/RG.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Workers claim that he should have been promoted following a competition. . This dispute was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 11th December, 2015 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I do not recommend that the Claimant be promoted to the Position of Senior Lecturer. "
On the 18th 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 16th of September 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The Worker should have been promoted as he achieved the criteria that was laid out by the College.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. Although the Worker achieved the necessary quantitative score, he did not achieve the necessary qualitative score to qualify him for recommendation for promotion.
DECISION:
The Claimant has applied, unsuccessfully, on a number of occasions for promotion to the grade of Senior Lecturer: 2001/02; 2002/03; 2003/4; 2004/05; 2006/07; and 2011/12. The dispute herein relates specifically to his application for promotion in 2011/12. The University has in place a detailed process by which such application are considered entitled, “Promotions Scheme to the Grade of Senior Lecturer” (hereafter referred to as” the Scheme”). The Scheme provides,inter alia, that a candidate must achieve the following in order to be eligible for promotion: (1) a minimum aggregated quantitative score of 175 marks out of 250 and (2) a qualitative weighting of ‘Excellent’ in either ‘Teaching and Examining’ or ‘Research and Scholarship’. Alternatively, where a candidate fails to achieve an ‘Excellent’ rating in one of the two aforementioned areas, he/she could still qualify for promotion provided the candidate achieves the requisite quantitative score of 175/250 and a rating of ‘Highly Satisfactory’ in whichever of the two areas where ‘Excellent’ had not been achieved, plus a minimum rating of ‘Satisfactory’ in ‘Service’, the third component for assessment. In the 2011 competition, the Claimant scored as follows: he received the required quantitative score of 175/250; he did not qualify to be recommended for promotion on the basis that he failed to achieve the necessary qualitative ratings in respect of the assessment criteria (i.e. ‘Teaching and Examining’, ‘Research and Scholarship’ and ‘Service’.)
The Scheme also provides for an internal appeals process. The Claimant availed himself of the appeals process in July 2012. The Respondent’s Academic Promotion Appeals Committee found in September 2012 that there had been a number of errors in the manner in which certain aspects of the Claimant’s academic work had been evaluated in 2011 and remitted his application back to the Promotions Board for reconsideration. The Committee also recommended that the Senior Lecturer Promotions Board review the Claimant’s submissions in relation to the fairness of the marks awarded and in relation to apparent errors in the handwritten notes retained by the Board. (These had been made available to the Claimant on foot of a Freedom of Information request.) That Board met on 15 March 2013 and subsequently confirmed its original decision that the Claimant was not eligible for promotion under the terms of the 2011 competition as he had not satisfied the qualitative element of the stated requirements. It also confirmed that the marks originally awarded to the Claimant should stand.
Decision
This Court has consistently adopted the position that it does not substitute its decision for that of an employer’s recruitment or promotional panel regarding the merits of a candidate for employment or promotion. The Court can only look behind a decision in relation to appointments where there is clear evidence of unfairness in the selection process or manifest irrationality in the result. The Claimant has not made out any such case to the Court in the within proceedings. It is evident to the Court that he did not meet the stated eligibility criteria for promotion to the grade of Senior Lecturer in the 2011 competition. The appeal, therefore, fails.
Nevertheless, the Court accepts that the wording of those paragraphs in the Respondent’s 2011 Scheme that detail the requirements a candidate must achieve in order to be eligible for promotion are somewhat ambiguous and could be more clearly expressed. It is possible, that the within proceedings could have been avoided had the relevant sections been more clearly drafted. The Court recommends that the University revisit the wording in advance of any future promotional competitions.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
16th November 2016______________________
JKDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.