FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TEACHERS UNION OF IRELAND DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no r-156730-ir-15JOC.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal against the procedures and processes used by the employer during a selection and recruitment process for a senior manager position.
- The Union said that circumstances were constructed by the employer which seriously disadvantaged the Worker.
- The Employer said the interview process was fairly conducted in accordance with relevant procedures before a properly constituted Selection Board.
- This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 11th February 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- Given the evidence submitted it appears that the process was carried out in accordance with the respondents guidelines, however it also appears that the interview panel failed to make complete notes during the interview process, (it is unclear whether they were required to do so), which could be interpreted as a lack of transparency by any individual seeking a review of the process. While there does appear to be some minor discrepancies in relation to the process I believe these applied equally to all candidates and as such would not have changed the overall outcome of the process
The Union on behalf of the Appellant appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 21st March 2016 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th October 2016.
WORKER’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Appellant was deeply concerned about the integrity of the interview process from the moment that his interview concluded.
2. It is clear he was disadvantaged in the selection process by the exclusion of a key evaluation heading from the marking scheme. He was provided with incorrect advice following the interview stage.
3. All of these factors contributed to prevent him from succeeding in the selection and recruitment process.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The interview process was fairly conducted in accordance with relevant procedures before a properly constituted Selection Board.
2. The interview board comprised senior internal and external persons.
3. Senior Management of CIT adequately addressed the Claimant’s grievances pursuant to CIT’s Grievance Procedure.
DECISION:
This matter comes before the Court as an appeal of an Adjudication Officer Decision made under the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 to 2015 in the complaint of ML (the Appellant) against Cork Institute of Technology (the Respondent).
The Appellant claimed that the Respondent had disadvantaged him in a process to recruit a Vice President of the Respondent College in 2014 such that he did not succeed in securing the competition. The Adjudication Officer did not find in favour of the Appellant.
The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court notes that the Appellant does not contend that the Panel appointed to conduct interviews treated him differently to eight other candidates in terms of time allowed for interview, methodology employed to formulate questions at interview or the scoring system employed to rank candidates for appointment. The Appellant does contend that the interview board raised a matter with him as regards academic freedom at the interview which was not asked of other candidates. The Respondent contends that any discussion of this topic arose during a discussion under one of the headings on which candidates were scored by the interview board.
The Appellant contends that the interview Board did not question him on areas of his particular expertise which were relevant to the post in question.
The interview board comprised senior internal and external (to the College) persons. The Appellant raised issues as regards their experience and training.
The Court has considered the issues raised by the Appellant as regards the conduct of the selection process in 2014. The Appellant seeks that the competition should at this stage be declared void or that he should receive a compensatory adjustment in pay or that he should receive a compensatory payment in respect of loss.
The Court cannot accept that there is anything inherently inappropriate or unfair in a procedure whereby an interview board, charged with making a selection decision in a post of the significance of the one at issue in the within case, would formulate its own questions and approach to their task. The Court notes that the Respondent has not been in a position to supply the Court with a record of the questions put by the Board to the nine candidates. This is unsatisfactory. The Court notes however that the Appellant does not contend, other than in one respect, that there was any lack of uniformity in the questions posed to all candidates. The Respondent has, as set out above, made a submission to the Court in regard to that single aspect.
The Court notes that the Appellant contends that the interview panel should have asked him about particular areas of his expertise but failed to do so. The Court cannot adopt the function of ‘second guessing’ the interview panel as regards the decision they made to pursue particular topics and not others in carrying out the interviews they were required to conduct. Neither can the Court intervene as regards the decision the interview board made as regards the time to be allotted to each interview. The Court understands that the interview board allowed the same time to all candidates and applied the same marking scheme to all candidates.
The Court is considering this matter as an industrial relations matter. The Court cannot, on the basis of the submissions made and the material supplied to the Court, find a basis for concluding that the procedures employed by the interview panel to carry out their function was unfair to the Appellant or was structured in such a way as to disadvantage him vis-a-vis other candidates.
The Appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
12th October, 2016Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.