FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : REHAB GROUP NATIONAL LEARNING NETWORK (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS & EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No ADJ-00003258.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute is in relation to a selection process for a position within the Company. The Complainant feels that he has more experience than the successful candidate and should have been offered the role. This dispute was referred to a Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 5th January, 2017 the Adjudication Office issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I find I cannot support the Union's claim for compensation, however, I would recommend that based on the positive approach of the claimant, that the parties engage to see how his talents might be better utilised by the respondent, taking into account all relevant factors."
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The Claimant was more experienced for the role advertised and he should have been given the position.
2. The Claimant believes that there are inconsistencies between the actual job which was advertised and the marking system used to make the recruitment decision.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The recruitment process was fair and the re-examination of the process on multiple occasions via the grievance investigations has reaffirmed this.
2. The Claimant availed of his right to raise a grievance regarding the outcome of the interview process. With that, his grievance was thoroughly processed and investigated and the employer upheld his decision not to promote. The claimant was deemed to be the second best candidate for the role.
DECISION:
This is the Worker’s appeal from recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00003258, dated 5 January 2017). The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 28 March 2017.
The Worker is seeking compensation for the Respondent’s decision not to appoint him to a position for which he unsuccessfully applied in April 2015. He is currently employed as an Employment Based Training Co-ordinator/Instructor and works a 36-hour week. He carries out his job from the Respondent’s premises in Hollyhill Industrial Estate in Cork. The position he applied for in April 2015 was for 15 hours per week and was based at Seward House on the Model Farm Road in Cork.
The Worker was informed in May 2015 that his application had been unsuccessful. He then successively invoked all stages of the Respondent’s grievance procedure alleging that sufficient credit had not been given to him during the selection process in respect of his relevant work experience. The Worker received the outcome of the final stage (Stage 3) on 5 April 2016. This confirmed that original results of the interview and selection process.
The Worker then referred the matter to an Adjudication Officer under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Adjudication Officer did not uphold the Worker’s claim for compensation but recommended “based on the positive approach of the claimant, that the parties engage to see how his talents might be better utilised by the respondent, taking account of all the relevant factors.”
The Worker submits he should be awarded compensation for the following reasons:
•The decision not to award him the 15 hours in Seward House was incorrect;•The job as advertised did not reflect the actual job that transpired;
•The Respondent’s marking system does not show how the decision to rank the three candidates was arrived at;
•The Respondent’s recruitment system is flawed and open to abuse.
The Respondent submits:
•The recruitment process undertaken in April 2015 was fair and this has been confirmed throughout the course of the grievance process;•The Complainant’s grievance in relation to the selection process was thoroughly considered but the original decision not to appoint him to the position was re-affirmed on three occasions;
•The Complainant received a fair and impartial review of his application;
•The Respondent acted at all times in accordance with its procedures and guidelines.
Recommendation
The Court, having considered both Parties’ written and oral submissions, upholds the recommendation of the Adjudication Officer.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
19th June 2017______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.