ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001490
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 |
CA-00002071-001 |
20/01/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/05/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984, and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
I am querying the interview and appointment of Maintenance Foreman NRS 1294 in (details supplied). How correct procedure was not followed and my personal and professional integrity was assassinated. |
The claimant has been employed as a Maintenance Technician in a West of Ireland Hospital since 2002.He previously worked for Eircom for 15 years as a Foreman and Supervisor. He had been MD of his own company for 4 years and employed 4 staff.
The position of Maintenance Foreman in the Hospital was advertised on the 19th.Dec. 2014 – with a closing date for the 5th.Jan 2015.It was submitted that the timing of the advertisement was in breach of 2.4 of the Code of Practise given the limited time frame over the Christmas period.It was submitted that the HSE interview guidelines provide that a Board must consist of an internal clinical expert , an external clinical expert and an independent Chairperson.It was submitted that the claimant was advised that the members of the Interview Board must be 2 grades above the vacant position.It was submitted that the claimant was shocked on arrival for interview to find that the Board failed to meet the guidelines with respect to the Board nominees – the external expert held a position of equivalent status to the post being competed for and was working directly to the internal expert who was also based at the hospital.
The claimant contended that the Board were inconsistent in their approach and did not ask him to talk about his work , education or experience – denying him the opportunity to potentially be hired on his merits.The claimant was of the view that the answers he gave were not fully understood by the Interview Panel.It was submitted that the panel denied the claimant fair procedures and natural justice and failed to take account of his supervisory qualifications.
It was submitted that following the issuing of the results of the competition the claimant sought a formal review of the process but submitted the investigation was not conducted to an acceptable standard.The claimant then sought to engage with Local Management to address his grievances – he was referred to the National Recruitment Service – he then referred his complaint to the Conciliation service of the WRC – the matter remained unresolved and was then referred for adjudication.It was submitted since making the complaint , the claimant’s working conditions had deteriorated and relations with his colleagues were very strained.This was having a negative effect , physically and mentally on the claimant.
It was submitted that the interview process was botched from the beginning and that it was designed to promote one individual irrespective of qualifications or knowledge.The claimant’s qualifications had been ignored and it was asserted the interview panel did not have the knowledge to conduct the interview and were biased against the claimant.The provisions of a 2005 Rights Commissioner recommendation were invoked in support of the claimant’s position.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The respondent denied any allegation of impropriety with respect to the competition and set out a chronology of the recruitment process.The claimant had submitted an informal appeal which was duly processed and had requested a formal review under Section 8 of the Code of Practice .The formal review had been undertake by an independent Arbitrator but his complaint was not upheld.The claimant had been advised of his option to have this review further reviewed by the Commission but had failed to exercise that option.Extensive documentation relating to the process was submitted by the HSE and a copy of the review undertaken by the Arbitrator was submitted in evidence.
Recommendation
I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the voluminous documentation submitted by the respondent specifically with respect to the Code of Practice. I could find no evidence to support the claimant’s contention that the constitution of the Interview Panel was in breach of the Code of Practice. In this regard, the claimant was relying upon an email issued to a colleague with respect to another competition – some 11 months after the competition at issue – when I enquired off the respondent the source of the recommendation that a Board must consist of an internal clinical expert , an external clinical expert and an independent Chairperson and that the members of the Interview Board must be 2 grades above the vacant position , it was confirmed that this recommendation originated in a best practise approach that had been adopted in the former North Western Health Board area. At the hearing , the respondent asserted that this approach was aspirational but in many cases cannot be achieved from a pragmatic point of view.
In the circumstances , while I have acknowledge that the claimant was relying on apparently confusing correspondence from the HSE in support of his complaint, I find there is no case to answer in terms of compliance with the provisions of the Code of Practice .I am satisfied that the respondent demonstrated compliance with their obligations under the Code of Practise – it was open to the claimant to appeal the review and he did not do so – clearly he remained aggrieved and should have exercised that option.I find the claimant was unable to present any compelling evidence of improper practise on the part of the Interview Board and consequently I do not uphold his complaint. I acknowledge the claimant remains deeply aggrieved and that he raised further grievances at the hearing with respect to his working relationships with his other colleagues – I recommend that he utilise the HSE grievance procedure to advance all such complaints.
Dated: 9th September 2016