Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

General Operative

Local Authority

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-00005618-001

01/07/2016

The dispute is in relation to the decision of management not to short list the complainant for a permanent promotional position, the duties of which he had been performing in an acting capacity for the previous 6 years.

The complainant was employed by the Authority since 2001 and was appointed in an acting capacity as an Inspector in June 2010. He received the appropriate allowance for so doing.

In November 2015 the respondent advertised the position of Inspector to be filled on a permanent basis and the complainant sent in an application form.

A short-list of candidates was drawn up by an external panel and it excluded the complainant.

The complainant appealed this decision to the HR Manager. The Manager rejected this appeal ignoring the complainant’s specific knowledge and experience of the job.

The complainant is aware of another candidate being allowed to put forward an application despite missing the deadline.

There is a significant loss of earnings for the complainant as a result of this process.

The complainant was appointed as an Inspector in an acting capacity in 2010 as there was a moratorium on permanent appointments.

In 2015 the respondent received permission to fill the position of Inspector on a permanent basis and advertised internally and in the local press.

Candidates were advised that a short-list could be drawn up by an external panel based on the completed application form.

Because of the number of applicants it was decided to compile a short-list for interview solely by reference to their application forms. The complainant failed to make the short-list and was informed accordingly.

Upon receipt of the appeal by the complainant, his application was reviewed and the decision to exclude him from the short-list was upheld on the basis that the form submitted by him did not provide sufficient information or evidence of adequate or relevant experience appropriate to the position.

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in October 2001. In June 2010 the complainant was appointed to the position of Inspector on an acting basis due to the moratorium on permanent appointments.   He was paid accordingly. Since that date the complainant has acquired the training and knowledge required to operate as an Inspector in that particular environment.

In November 2015 the respondent, having received the necessary permission, advertised the position of Inspector to be filled on a permanent basis. This was done both by internal email and by an advertisement in the local press. This advertisement stated that “selection will be by means of interview and candidates may be shortlisted based on applications submitted”. In addition the application form also stated that “as applicants may be short-listed on basis of information supplied on application forms you should ensure that information given is sufficiently comprehensive.”

The complainant submitted an application form. A total of 44 applications were received and because of this the respondent convened an external two person panel to examine the applications and to draw up a short-list of candidates based on knowledge and specific criteria. As a result of this exercise 20 candidates were invited for interview and the remainder, including the complainant, were advised accordingly.

The complainant appealed the decision to exclude him from the interview process by way of letter to the HR Manager on 23 March 2016. In this letter he listed his skills, knowledge and experience and asked that his application be reviewed taking these points into account. The HR Manager (who has since retired and did not attend the WRC hearing) rejected this appeal. The hand-written note on the appeal letter states: “on the basis of the info. supplied on Mr. .….’s application form his appeal is rejected.” A letter was sent to the complainant stating that the respondent’s decision was upheld and he would not be short-listed for interview.

An Inspector was duly appointed and the complainant returned to his position as a General Operative with the consequent loss of his acting allowance. This difference amounts to in excess of €200.00 per week.

I have studied the documentation supplied by the parties. I note that the information supplied by the complainant on the application form was fairly minimal. I also note that the respondent had advised candidates that a short-list could be drawn up based on the information supplied on the application form. It is a fact of life however that some people are extremely skilled at completing forms and CVs and others are not and that this skill is not necessarily indicative of their ability to perform the job in question. I accept that, faced with 44 applications, some process was required to reduce that number and in particular to weed out those applicants who would be ineligible for whatever reason for the position advertised. The complainant had, however, included on his application one very important fact, i.e. that he was already doing the job. The external review panel appeared to have not given weight to that fact.

The complainant then appealed to the HR Manager who presumably would be aware of his record.   The position of the respondent is that the appeal could not be upheld because the process was not flawed. It was agreed at the hearing that if the information contained in the complainant’s appeal letter had been included in his original application form then in all probability the complainant would have made the short-list. It appears to me that it would not have upset the integrity of the process if, based on all the information now before them, the appeal had been allowed. This is reinforced by the fact that an application from another person was accepted after the deadline when a flaw with the email system was discovered.   In other words common sense was applied.

Of course there is no guarantee that even if granted an interview that the complainant would have been appointed to the position of inspector or indeed that he would even have been appointed to the panel that was formed as a result of the interviews.

The respondent’s representative sought that the complainant should be returned to his position as Inspector or that he be compensated for the loss of earnings that he has incurred as a result of being debarred from the interview process.   The first relief sought is clearly untenable insofar as an appointment has been made to the position in a fully legal manner. As stated above, access to the interview process could not be taken as guaranteeing that the complainant would be appointed as Inspector bearing in mind that there were 20 other applicants involved in that process. The question of compensation for loss as claimed is therefore hypothetical rather than grounded in fact.

I accept that the complainant has a genuine grievance in relation to not being granted an interview for a position that he had been performing for a number of years. His experience and ability to perform the job should have been noted by the external panel but, if not, should certainly have been acknowledged on appeal. I recommend therefore that the respondent, bearing in mind the difficulties some people encounter with form-filling, review their procedures with the aim of ensuring that a common sense approach is adopted when vetting applications. I further recommend that the appeal process be expanded beyond just ensuring that it was not flawed but also making certain that all relevant information (in this case the complainant’s work experience) has been taken into account.

I recommend that the complainant’s application be kept on file and activated in the event of a further competition for this specific position occurring. I have noted that compensation for loss cannot arise but in the unique circumstances of this case I recommend that the respondent pay to the complainant the sum of €2,000.00 as an acknowledgement that matters should have been handled in a better manner.