ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007052
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Public Service Employee | State Agency |
Representatives | Chris Cully IMPACT Trade Union | Christine West Mason Hayes Curran |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00009597-001 | 08/02/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/05/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] 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).
Background:
Challenge to the changing of criteria for eligibility for application for promotional post. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complaint relates to the altering of the eligibility criteria for a post in the Educational Welfare Service which resulted in the Claimant being excluded from a competition for a job which he contends he would have been eligible for prior to the Respondent unilaterally changing the criteria. His complaint has been through the internal processes without satisfactory resolution. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Claimant requested a review of his application under the Codes of Practise Appeals Process, questioning whether the eligibility criteria was too narrow. Such reviews are limited to whether the process had been adhered to properly. This was the first time the Respondent had recruited for this post. The grievance was referred to the Decision Arbitrator to assess whether the initial review has been carried out in line with proper procedures. The Arbitrator found that the conduct of the initial review has been adhered to and that the decision deeming T’s application as ineligible is upheld. The decision of the Decision Arbitrator is final. The Respondent acknowledged on further appeal that it was normal practise within the Educational Welfare Services for such changes to be shared with our Staff Partners prior to advertisement and that this had not happened in this case. However, the setting of eligibility criteria is the remit of the employer and the appeal was not upheld. |
Recommendation:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
[Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.]
I have considered the submission of both parties. In the evidence presented to me I accept the Respondent’s right to determine the criteria they required for any post in the functioning of their role and duty under their mandate. I therefore do not find the claim well founded and it fails. |
Dated: 9th August 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Key Words:
Eligibility for post |