ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008655
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Supervisor | A County Council |
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-00011351-001 | 16/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/09/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes
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 respondent has employed the complainant since March 1998. The dispute concerns the failure of the respondent to appoint the complainant to a promotional role. The parties made written and oral submission to the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that he has been employed as an acting foreman for a nine-year period prior to his appointment as “acting general services supervisor” in 2015. He acted in that role for a fifteen-month period. He was subsequently unsuccessful in his application for the permanent general services supervisor role which was advertised by the respondent in September 2016 (he was placed eight on the panel) and therefore removed from his acting role. His Trade Union wrote to the respondent at the end of November seeking details of the selection criteria, his scores and the anonymised scores to the other candidates together with the reasons for his non-appointment. The respondent refused to supply other than his interview evaluation form which did provide the selection criteria and his scores. The reason for his non-appointment and the appointment of the successful candidate were given as being “in accordance with the candidate’s position on a panel following the confined interview process for the position in question”. The matter raised by way of internal grievance thereafter and the initial finding was appealed. Six specific issues were noted in the appeal – length of service, long period spent as acting foreman, good record as acting services supervisor, failure to provide information as requested, short service of successful candidate and that the complainant was disadvantaged by his permanent status. In its rejection of the appeal the appeals officer stated that it was not open to the respondent to disclose information of a personal nature relating to candidates other than to the candidates themselves but went on to disclose the score of the first placed candidate. The complainant seeks a recommendation that the respondent appoint him to the position of general services supervisor. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that the complainant made application for the position of “acting general services supervisor” and was successful at interview in July 2015. He was placed first on the panel and commenced the role In August of that year. The appointment was made “pending the filling of a permanent vacancy or until alternative arrangements are made whichever is the earlier”, a fact which was clearly stated in his specified purpose contract accompanying the offer. A permanent “general services supervisor” position was advertised in September 2016 for which the complainant made application. He was placed eight on the panel. Thereafter he was informed that his acting arrangement would cease with effect from the 28th of November 2016. He claimed that he had been demoted and referred the matter to the internal grievance procedure. The grievance was unsuccessful and the matter was referred to the WRC. The complainant does not have an automatic right to the GSS post, he was given no assurances in the matter and was paid his entitlement to acting allowance during his acting appointment. The respondent is bound by its procedures and collective agreements as it relates to these matters. It relies on the authority of the Labour Court as outlined in LCR20634. |
Recommendation:
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 am satisfied that there are significant issues raised in this case, however it is not for me to adjudicate or make recommendation in response to the fact that they have been referred to here. Suffice it to say that they are of collective import and should be raised in the appropriate forum. Concerning the petition for a recommendation for appointment to the disputed role I feel bound to follow the lead of the Labour Court in LCR20634. I so recommend. |
Dated: 8th August 2018.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes