FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NATIONAL RECRUITMENT SERVICE HSE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00001490/EOS
BACKGROUND:
2. The Employee appealed the Adjudication Officers Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 12th October 2016 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of April 2017.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
The Worker was unsuccessful in applying for the position of Maintenance Foreman at one of the Employer's sites. The Union contends that the interview board responsible for the hiring of a Maintenance Foreman possessed neither the knowledge or capacity for unbiased assessment of candidates. This lack of capacity, the Union states, is reflected in the interview board's manner of questioning and failure to acknowledge the Worker's qualifications.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
The Employer refutes the Union's claim that the interview board in question possessed insufficient knowledge regarding the role of Maintenance Foreman. Furthermore, the Employer stated that the interview board questions candidates in line with a pre-agreed, structured, competency based format. The Employer stated that all candidates were provided the same information and treated in the same manner throughout the process.
DECISION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Claimant in this matter is dissatisfied with the conduct and outcome of a competition to recruit a Maintenance Foreman. That competition was a public one and ultimately the successful candidate was a colleague of the Claimant in the hospital. In addition another colleague of the Claimant was paced on a panel for appointment from the same competition.
The Court cannot put itself in a position of ‘second guessing’ the selection decisions of the persons charged by HSE with selection of candidates via interview. That would be an unreasonable intrusion by the Court and could lead to negative commentary damaging to other candidates in the competition not represented before the Court.
The Court notes that the Claimant pursued to a certain point the appeal processes open to him under the Code of Practice in place and operated by HSE in accordance with regulatory approvals from the CPSA. The Court notes that the Claimant decided not to exhaust that procedure.
The Court regrets the lack of detail available to it from the Respondent as regards the conduct of the competition including a lack of detail as regards outcomes. Nevertheless, the Court is not in a position to assess compliance by HSE with the approved Code and understands that the CPSA carries a statutory responsibility for consideration of such matters.
In all of the circumstances the Court is unable to uphold the appeal.
The Court recommends that the record of the Claimant’s application for the competition should be removed from his personnel file. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
JD
10 May 2017______________________
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.