ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008661
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A worker | A packaging Company |
Representatives | Martin Mannion SIPTU | Roisin Bradley IBEC |
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-00011352-001 | 16/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/09/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate a matter raised. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
Having confirmed that the Complainant herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts and Having conducted the Investigation as described in Section 13, I, as the so appointed Adjudication Officer, am bound to make a recommendation which will set forth my opinion on the merits of the within dispute.
Summary:
The Complainant gave his own evidence. The parties additionally opened their submissions in the course of the hearing. The Complainant was aware that the “Pallet Man” position has been filled off and on over a three year period in circumstances where the full time position holder was on extended periods of sick leave. At least two other persons in the workforce had filled in for these absences created, over the years. There is no evidence to suggest that the Complainant had actively sought to fill the position on a temporary basis himself. The Complainant opted instead to wait until the position became vacant in the ordinary course. This opportunity finally arose in July of 2016 at which time, no less than five people applied for the post of permanent “pallet man”. I cannot accept the Complainant’s argument that a different set of criteria should apply if a person is seeking a promotion within the workplace, to the criteria which should apply to a sideways move in the organisation. Employers have to be allowed the privilege of selecting the best person or candidate for any position whether promoting upwards, downwards or sideways. I do see that the Complainant has some entitlement to be aggrieved that the person holding the position (albeit in a temporary capacity) for a significant period of time in advance of the open competition is going to be the person who has a particularly good opportunity to do well at interview. This is inevitable where some of the Criteria are specific to the job to be filled. At best, the Complainant could have hoped that those criteria eg Knowledge of Department and Ability to Load Waste Bales might have been marked less than other criteria (maybe a score of three instead of five). I would not accept that they should not form part of the criteria at all. Again, the Employer is entitled to consider the level of training that might or might not be required as part of a process. Even looking at the marks scored by the different candidates it is not just these job specific criteria that gave the successful candidate his high marking. That candidate was fully 11 marks ahead of the Complainant. I can see no argument that would ascribe the length of service as being a decisive factor and accept that it is correctly attributed with the same mark value as other criteria. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I find that the Complainant was entitled to raise the dispute. However, on balance I am finding that the Complainant has not persuaded me that the Interview process was flawed such that it rendered the process unfair. I make no recommendation.
Dated: 14th November 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words: