Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Senior Librarian

Local Authority

Representatives

Paul Hutchinson, B.L., instructed by Sean Ormonde & Co. Solicitors

Sarah Hearns, LGMA

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-00006758-001

02/09/2016

The complainant is a librarian who commenced employment with the respondent in January 1991.   In December 2008 the complainant was appointed as an Acting Senior Executive Librarian to cover maternity leave and there followed several appointments to that position for various reasons.

In early 2014 the respondent advertised the post of Senior Executive Librarian and the complainant applied for the position. A panel was formed which would have a life of two years and the complainant achieved first place on this panel. A dispute arose regarding the National Workforce Plan for Libraries. One of the parties to the dispute was the complainant’s union. Meanwhile the complainant was given to understand from members of management that her appointment was imminent. At one stage she was assured that it would occur within a couple of weeks. The complainant was asked to cooperate as regards flexibility of duties in the meantime. The dispute regarding the Workforce Plan remained unresolved and the appointment panel expired in April 2016.

A new recruitment panel was advertised and the complainant participated under protest. She was placed second on this panel. No appointment was made as a final agreement satisfactory to the respondent was not attained and new Departmental criteria will most probably result in another panel being formed.

The complainant applied for and secured first place on the panel from which the position of Grade 7 Senior Executive Librarian was to be filled.

In February 2015 the complainant was informed by members of management that her appointment to the position would take place within a week or two and was congratulated by senior management in this regard.

The complainant was then advised that a difficulty had arisen due to her union’s objections to the National Workforce Plan for Libraries.

In October 2015 the complainant through her union requested that the duration of the panel be extended because of the ongoing issues. No response was received from the respondent to this request or to a repeated request.

The complainant was advised by her union that there was no objection at local level to her specific appointment going ahead but the respondent refused to act on this.

The panel expired in on 22 April 2015 with no appointment being made by the respondent.

A new recruitment process was initiated and the complainant was placed second on the resultant panel. The complainant has compared the 2016 results with those of 2014 and believes the later results are arbitrary and illogical having regard to her greater relevant experience.

The complainant lodged an official complaint with the Authority’s CEO in May 2016 but did not receive a reply despite a number of e-mail reminders.

In August 2016 the complainant had a telephone conversation with the CEO in which he promised to respond to the complaint. No response was received. During the conversation the CEO suggested that the matter be referred to a third party.

The position of Senior Executive Librarian could not be filled because there was no agreement with the complainant’s union in relation to the Authority’s proposals.

The recruitment for the library service is also subject to the approval of the Department of the Environment.

Permanent appointments have to be filled through competition. There is no mechanism for the automatic granting of a permanent substantive post by virtue of long-term acting positions.

The workforce planning arrangements in the library service are the subject of ongoing discussions with the union on a national basis. The council is not in a position to proceed with the filling of any vacancy until such time as a suite of measures is agreed with the union and sanctioned by the Department.

This dispute was heard in conjunction with the complaints under the Employment Equality Acts and the Payment of Wages Act contained in ADJ-00006207.

The complainant had been appointed in an acting capacity to the Grade 7 post of Senior Executive Librarian on a number of occasions commencing in December 2008. When the recruitment panel for that position was formed in 2014 the complainant attained first place on same. The National Workforce Plan for Libraries confirmed the requirement for such a post. In early 2015 the complainant was advised by her line manager that an appointment was expected shortly and soon afterwards was requested to provide a business case at very short notice for the appointment. In February 2015 the complainant was informed by her line manager that the appointment had been agreed by management and as she was No. 1 on the panel her appointment would take place in a week or so. Around the same time at an event in the Central Library the complainant was congratulated by the Director with responsibility for the Library service on her forthcoming appointment. Shortly after this the complainant was informed by her line manager that the appointment would not proceed as the complainant’s union had issues with the National Workforce Plan. The complainant contacted her union representative who advised her that the issue was a national one that required agreement between the parties. He sympathised with the complainant regarding her position while he congratulated her on her appointment which he had heard about “through the grapevine”.

There being no resolution of the dispute, in October 2015 the complainant’s union wrote to the respondent’s HR Manager and requested that the life of the panel formed in 2014 be extended. No response was received so a reminder was sent in November 2015 which also was unanswered. Later that month the complainant discussed her situation with the Director in charge of the Library Service and was given to understand that he would support local negotiations to resolve her issue. Following this the complainant wrote to the HR Manager asking for a decision on the union’s request for an extension of the panel. There was no response to this correspondence.

In February 2016 the complainant attended a meeting between the union and management at which the issue of the Library Service was amongst the issues to be discussed. The complainant’s view of the meeting was that the union advised that it was no longer opposed to her appointment proceeding. The minutes of the meeting, however, state that the union confirmed that their members were not going to enter into local discussions as they were awaiting the issue of national guidelines on the Workforce Plan. The minutes also state that the current panel would not be extended beyond 2 years. At the end of the month a union circular announced that there was now agreement between the union and management nationally on Workforce Planning and once guidelines were received from union HQ local negotiations could start.   The complainant spoke to the Director who promised to speak with the HR Manager but no response was received in this regard and in April 2016 the panel expired.

A new promotion panel was advertised and the complainant applied under protest. The complainant was ranked No. 2 on this panel. The complainant state that having compared the 2014 results with the 2016 results she found the marking illogical and arbitrary.   In 2016 the complainant achieved more marks than 2014. She made the point that she had more experience in a Grade 7 position than the person placed first. She was, however, graded higher in the experience category in 2016 (90%) than 2014 (70%).

In May 2016 the complainant lodged an official complaint with the respondent’s CEO. No response was received. The complainant sent a reminder in July 2016 but again received no reply. Finally, some weeks later the complainant telephoned the CEO who promised a written response but none was received. The CEO did suggest in the conversation that the issue be referred to a third party.   Eventually the complainant sought legal advice regarding her issues with the respondent.

In the meantime the Department of the Environment had circulated new criteria for the recruitment of staff for the Library Service and the complainant was advised by the Department that no permanent appointments could be made from panel recruited under the old criteria.  No appointments have been made from this panel.

It is quite clear from their submission and direct evidence that management took a decision that the Council required full agreement on all aspects of the Workforce Plan before any implementation of same. I note that even on the final day of the hearing there were matters that were unresolved and that issues have been referred to the WRC. The complainant was in the unfortunate position of being caught in the middle of this dispute through no fault of her own. The complainant continued to demonstrate commitment and flexibility and for periods performed the duties associated with acting-up without being remunerated for same.

It is clear from the documentation that there had been an initial management decision to proceed with the filling of the post. This decision was in the process of being implemented when the roadblock of a national dispute in relation to the Workforce Plan was reached.   In the meantime the complainant had been informed that her appointment as No. 1 on the panel was imminent. I believe that this was done in good faith.   When it became apparent that the appointment would not proceed as planned more sensitivity should have been displayed by management to the position of the complainant. What should not have occurred is that correspondence would go unanswered. The request to extend the 2014 panel should, as a matter of courtesy, have been responded to and explained. It is not acceptable for the HR Manager to state that she presumed that the complainant’s union would keep her informed. It is clear also that the complainant had conversations with the Director with responsibility for the Library Service but promised action never materialised. The complaint lodged with CEO was also unanswered despite a written reminder and a telephone conversation. It would appear that management were not prepared to deal with the one person directly affected by the chain of events and consequent decisions. The complainant felt that she had to engage a solicitor in order to communicate with her employer.

Management are entitled to make decisions on policy matters but while the decision may be objectively justified they should also be sensitive to any adverse impact that such a decision may have on a member or members of staff. This is part of the remit of a HR Department. The complainant was badly served by different levels of management in this regard particularly in the basic courtesies of replying to communications and responding in the manner promised. The HR Manager in evidence accepted that what had occurred in this matter was not in line with best HR practice.

I recommend therefore that the HR Department should review their procedures so as to ensure that defects high-lighted in this case be addressed in order to ensure that staff members’ issues are addressed with courtesy and sensitivity.

I understand that no appointment has been made from the present panel and that because of the new criteria introduced by the Department no permanent appointment can be made from that panel. I recommend that the panel be allowed lapse and that a new recruitment panel be advertised and formed under the new criteria applying to applicants.

In the unique circumstances of this case and having regard to the defects in good HR practice that have been identified, I recommend that the respondent pay the complainant the sum of €2,500.00 as compensation in this regard.