ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007844
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Technical Officer | Educational Institute |
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-00010507-001 | 29/03/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/08/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [ and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] 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).
Background:
The Claimant is claiming that he was excluded from applying for a senior technical officer post for which he was qualified. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Circular 13/2006 was enacted which structured the grade of technicians in the sector including the senior technician officer (STO). Following a proposal from the LRC the institute and the union rectified the selection methods in October 2007. In the institute the STO vacancies were filled on the basis that ‘if the job did not work out then the person was gone’. As a result there were not applications in the first round from internal staff. In 2008 the jobs were advertised externally but no applications were made and the jobs were not filled. There are currently two STO vacancies. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Claimant was one of two candidates who were called for interview. Neither of them were selected for appointment. Due to the introduction of the Employee Control Framework a freeze on hiring was enacted in 2009. It is still in place and the institute await information on any changes to this policy. The Claimant wrote to the institute on 24 March 2014 to express his interest in applying for the fourth filling of the post. The institute responded to him explaining that as the post was currently on its fourth attempt at filling, a Master’s Degree was required. The Claimant did not raise any dissatisfaction with this response and did not raise a grievance at this time. The Claimant raised a grievance on 30 January 2015, so0me 10 months after the competition had closed. He claimed that post should be advertised internally in the first instance. At the grievance hearing he was reminded that he had two separate opportunities to apply for three different posts but only chose to apply for one post on one occasion. The grievance was not upheld. He appealed this and it was heard on 27 January 2016.It was not upheld again. The Claimant lodged his claim with the WRCV on 29 March 2017, some 12 months after receiving the appeal outcome. |
Decision:
Section 41 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.
[Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.]
I have considered the submissions of both parties. The Claimant’s claim relates to a recruitment process that took place in April 2014. It was a continuation of the first filling opportunities which took place in 2008. He chose not to apply for this. At the second filling he applied but was un successful as was the other candidate. The Claimant failed to raise a grievance at this time or contest the outcome.. I am satisfied having read the documentation accompanying the submission that the respondent has fulfilled its obligation under Circular 13/2006 and were not obliged to appoint an internal candidate only. I do not find the Claimant’s claim well founded and it fails. |
Dated: 23rd April 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Key Words:
|