ADJ-00007872

ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007872

Parties:

DISPUTE

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/07/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 and following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

BACKGROUND:

The Complainant has been employed with the Respondent Company as a Printer since 1^st May 2001. The Complainant is paid €66,500.00 per annum and he works 38.7 hours a week. The Complainant referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commis March 2017 in relation to the outcome of a promotion competition.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINANT’S POSITION:

The Complainant has been employed from 2001 working the night shift with nine other employees, including a named employee, who was the successful candidate. In December 2015 he applied for a transfer to the day shift on medical advice and following a complaint to the HSA in 2016 he was transferred to the day shift from 22^nd June 2016 to March 2017 when he was certified fit to resume night work. The Complainant alleged that in 2016 another named night shift worker was moved to the day shift and alleged that because of this move he was advantaged in relation to the Complainant when a promotion position became available on the day shift. This centred on this employees access to computers.

In September 2016 a position of Day Shift Printer No 2 was advertised on the retirement of an employee. The advertisement stated in detail the requirement for the position. It was alleged that another named employee received training while on the day shift to put him in the best position for the permanent position as advertised. The interview was conducted by two people and all applicants were answering some 20 questions and applicants were marked according to their answer. The Complainant disputed the fairness of the interview process. In addition the Complainant stated that in March 2015 members of the night shift sent in a petition asking for a night shift change rota and out of the 24 employees some 21 signed and three did not including the successful candidate.

The Complainant confirmed that he was not suggesting the wrong candidate was selected but wishes the process to be identified as a flawed process and requires measures to ensure it is not allowed to occur again.

The Complainant had utilised the internal grievance process which does include a final appeal to the WRC. His complaint was not upheld.

SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT’S POSITION:

Following the retirement of an employee on the day shift the position was advertised. An Interview Board was established consisting of two named employees. Interviews took place on 20^th October 2016. Each Candidate was asked 20 questions. The first 12 questions were technical questions put together by 10 Day Managers and 8 questions were HR related questions concerning knowledge and suitability for the position. There were two candidates interviewed and both had 10 years’ service and both candidates were working on the day shift at the time of the interviews. The Interviewers had no knowledge of the March 2015 petition. The Respondent confirmed that the Complainant worked on the Night Shift but was moved to the day shift on 22^nd June 2016 on medical advice and he resumed night shifts in March 2017 again on medical advice.

The Respondent stated there are 12 No 2 Printers and 12 No 3 Printers on the Night Shifts and 8 No 2 Printers and 7 No 3 Printers on the Day shift. The position following interview was filled in November 2016.

The Respondent confirmed that the successful candidate scored 178 /200 while the Complainant scored 111/200.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

On the basis of the evidence from both Parties I find as follows –

I note that SIPTU Trade Union have a Collective Agreement with the Respondent Company effective from 21^st July 2008. I note that this agreement covers both Recruitment and Selection and Promotion.

The Complainant confirmed at the Hearing that he was not questioning the competence, capability or conduct of the Interview Board. I further note that the Complainant confirmed at the Hearing that he was not alleging the successful candidate should not have been promoted.

I find that it is a matter for both SIPTU and the Respondent Company to collectively agree any changes considered necessary to the promotion process in the Company, and to agree any changes considered necessary to the current Collective Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute]

Dated:   21/09/17

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Key Words: