ADJ-00004120

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004120

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:  

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/12/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney

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:

The Claimant worked as a Principal Officer in London Borough. This grade is currently the fifth level of administrative management in the UK local government structures which would be the level of grade VII in Ireland.

In 2015/2016, the Respondent advertised for a grade IV, V, VI, VII   vacancies by competition. The Claimant applied for the grade VI and VII posts. He was deemed eligible for the grade IV post but not the grade VI and VII. This was based on the Respondent criteria for the Common Recruitment Pool (CRP).

The Claimant believes that the Respondents erred in their interpretation of the criteria and he is at a significant loss by not being able to apply for promotion. He is not arguing that he should be appointed to any of the vacancies but is seeking compensation of €20,000.00 which is the difference between his current salary and the first point on grade VII.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Respondent reviewed the Claimant’s application and considered his experience with them but it did not meet the requirements for some of the posts. He was interview for the grade IV post at the preliminary stage. He was unsuccessful to proceed to the next stage. The decision was based on the fact that he did not have two years satisfactory experience either in his post or at a level not lower than that of a Clerical Officer in one of the organisations set out in the CPR list. The CPR is an agreement entered into with the staff union and LGMA which restricts eligibility to compete in competitions to individuals who were either existing staff or who had specific work experience in member organisations in the CPR.

The Respondent role is to safeguard standards of best practise in recruitment and selection processes to position in their organisation. This requires absolute transparency and fairness in its recruitment processes. This criterion applies to all similar bodies in the CRP.

The Claimant does not accept his experience in similar bodies in another jurisdiction for the purposes of determining his eligibility was wrong and the Respondent should deem him eligible. It is the Respondent position is that if it was to apply a level of significant discretion in his case it would have to do so in all other cases and the eligibility would be defunct.

The Respondent cited the case of Gormley & Scott v Min. for Agriculture (no. 2) [2013 whereby Hogan J stated that the real question was whether the rejection of the applicants on the grounds of not meeting the equivalence requirements was factually sustainable and not unreasonable.

Decision:

Section 41(4) 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.

I have considered the submissions of both parties. This case is being taken under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and no other supporting legislation. The Claimant’s case as stated is that he is not arguing that he should be appointed to any of the vacancies, but that his loss suffered is the denial of opportunity to compete with his peers for the vacancies.

The facts of the case are that theClaimant commenced employment with the Respondent as part of the graduate programme on a specific salary of €28, 344.00 per annum on 11 May 2015. He applied to positions in September 2015 and January 2016. Therefore he did not have the basic two years satisfactory service requirement as one the reasons for his lack of eligibility for the post he qualified for. Also as the Claimant is seeking compensation for not being able to compete for posts he is not eligible for. This would set an absurd precedent if conceded.

I do not find the claim well founded and it fails.

Dated:   15 March 2017