ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009872
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Health and Safety Officer | Local Authority |
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-00012944-001 | 03/08/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/11/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marian Duffy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969, 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 worker commenced employment with the employer as a Health and Safety Officer in September 2005. He is complaining about the recruitment process for the position of Senior Executive Health and Safety Officer and about the conduct of the interview. He was unsuccessful at the interview and he says the interview process had many shortcomings and this has negatively impacted on his career prospects. He is seeking financial compensation. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The worker stated that he applied for the position of Senior Executive Health and Safety Officer in June 2016 and he was interviewed in October 2016 but he was not successful. He set out twelve complaints he had about the recruitment process. He submits that the employer did not follow the Local Government Management Services Board recruitment procedures. He said that the employer allowed people who had not with the required specifications and experience through to the interview stage at the screening process. One of the requirements for the post was that candidates have at least three years’ satisfactory relevant experience including adequate experience in specified areas including staff supervision and relevant administration. The worker submits that candidates who did not have the required specifications in staff supervision and relevant administration were successful at the interview stage. He argues that he was the only candidate in this competition who had three years plus staff supervision. He said three of the staff had some staff supervision but 12 other candidates in the competition had no experience of direct staff supervision. The qualifications and requirements for the post are decided by the Department of Local Government under section 160 of the Local Government Act 2001. He said adequate cognizance was not taken in regards to this essential requirement and he believes this has negatively impact it on his standing in the competition. Inconsistency in the interview allocated to each candidate The worker believes that the time allocated to candidates at interview varied greatly and negatively impact on him. The time allocated for the interview was 40 minutes, but he believes that the interview times range from 35 to 51 minutes and his interview lasted 43 minutes. He believes this is contrary to the Local Government Management Services Boards instructions notes from members of interview boards dated May 2000. He was negatively impacted on by other candidates being offered more time than he was. In addition, the interview panels inability to keep the interviews to the assigned scheduled times resulted in him being rushed through some answers which negatively impact on his interview performance. Interview Schedule -Delays He said that the interview was delayed by 20 minutes and this is contrary to the local government management services board procedure for interviews, where it states that interviews should adhere as far as it is practical to the set timetable, so the candidates are not delayed or adversely affected. He said that the time waiting had a negative impact on his interview performance as waiting that extra time raised his anxiety and stress levels. Assumptions made by interviewers The worker said he was asked closed, leading and negative questions such as “I know your work doesn’t involve roadworks and I see you have very little experience of traffic management” “I see you have very little experience a confined spaces” He said assumptions were made by the interviewer which he believes negatively influenced the other board members, and it seemed to him that this interviewer already had formed his opinion of him and his experience. He said he had extensive experience of these particular subject matters and he believes that this line of questioning is contrary to the aforementioned notes for interview boards and was biased in its nature. The notes provide that interviewers should be as objective as possible and not to bring any pre-conceived ideas of the candidate into the interview process or allow comments to impact and their judgement. The worker believes that inferences may have been drawn from this question that may have negatively impact and his scoring performance. Inferences Made He said that one of the interviewers said to him ‘I see you have been in 3 different departments, why did you move departments?’. The worker said that this implied that he looked to move departments and that the board members could have inferred that there were problems and that he was not happy in the other departments. He said that this question was not approached with an open mind and that he should have been asked about the work in the departments and how the transfers came about and this line of questioning would not have raised an inference that he was the one who sought to move departments. He said that it was HR who moved him. He believes that the inferences which may have been drawn from the way the question was phrased could have negatively impacted on the scores from the interview board. Inappropriate and Irrelevant questions The worker submissions that there were inappropriate and irrelevant questions asked by one of the interviewers. He was asked a question concerning a health and safety officer who worked in his department regarding the person’s impending retirement and the status of their health. He says that this line of questioning is contrary to the guidance notes for interview boards. The interviewer and the worker worked together and knew the person who was retiring. He submits this was an improper question to be asked and it distracted from the interview at hand and used up the time allocated to him to score in the competency areas. He believes this negatively impacted on his interview scoring and his ability to score points. Unusual statements/ questions for an interview He said that the chairperson of the interview board made an unusual statement where she advised at the end of the interview that he should not be disappointed if he was unsuccessful and that he should get Feedback to see where he went wrong. She said that she wanted and to say being unsuccessful did not mean that he couldn’t do the job as a Health and Safety Officer. He said that this statement appears to have only been made to unsuccessful candidates before the panel summed up at the end of the interview. He said he was asked if you thought he had been treated fairly at this interview and submits that this was also an inappropriate question. It is implicit in any interview that a person is treated fairly at interview.
Adversarial nature of interview The worker also said that the interview was very adversarial. There was no question to put him at ease and to create a friendly atmosphere. This is a requirement provided for in the notes provided to the interview board for such questions to be asked. He said that the chairperson was very confrontational in respect of one answer he gave concerning a question about a ‘serious adverse event’. The chairperson repeatedly questioned him about not calling a criminal lawyer in relation to the event. He said that he had no power to bring in legal expertise at his grade. He did inform the executive manager about the matter and it was his call to determine if it was necessary to bring legal expertise. He said the chairperson seem to say it was a dereliction of duties of his duties under the competency. The worker also said that the chairperson was not aware of the procedures and duties assigned to a grade 7 health safety officer and he believes this lack of knowledge negatively impacted on his scoring in the competition. Lack of Technical persons on the Interview Board The worker also submitted that there was a lack of health and safety and welfare technical expertise on the interview board. He said that two of the interviewers did not hold any qualifications in Occupational Health & Safety and Welfare and had never worked as health and safety officers. The chairperson completed a Masters in health and to safety risk management but she never worked as an occupational health and safety officer/ manager. He believes that the lack of expert in safety and health knowledge negatively impacted on his scoring. Feedback notes provided The worker said that in the feedback notes he received, a recommendation was made that he would benefit from rotation. This suggested that he is a lack of experience for the role he was applying for. He submitted that he has 12 years’ experience as a health and safety officer and he believes he was the most experienced candidate. He said that none of the other candidates had as much experience as he had including the successful candidates. He believes that the interview panel were not fully aware of his experience either by not reading through his application or by the lack of questioning during the interview. End of Interview -- No Time to ask questions or give additional information. The worker said at the end of the interview he was not afforded any time to ask questions or to give additional information, the chairperson said that the interview was over. According to the local government management services board instructions to interview boards candidates must be given an opportunity to give additional information and clarify points. He believes that the panels failure to afford him this opportunity adversely impacted on his scoring in the competition as he had additional information to give them and he wanted to clarify some points. He believes the interviews were running late and this was the reason no opportunity was given to him to ask questions before the interview concluded. Time between Interviews for summing up He believes there was little if any time allocated between each interview for the board members to discuss and agree a consensus mark for each candidate. He said he observed this while he was waiting in reception for interview. He said candidates were called in to interview approximately three minutes after the previous person’s interview was concluded and this was not adequate time to discuss the final mark under the five competency headings. He contends that the summing up was rushed because the interviews were running late. It was not done in a fair and timely manner and he believes that this adversely impacted on the scoring he received. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The employer submitted that following an agreement on restructuring the health and safety function within the Local Authority it was decided introduce a new grade of senior executive health and safety officer and a total of three new posts would be created at this level. Following the completion of this process, the employer proceeded to advertise the competition. A total of 16 applications were received and 15 candidates were called for interview in October 2016. Following the interviews, the interview board decided on a panel of three successful candidates and they were appointed on the 24th of October 2016. The applicant in this case was not successful. A number of the unsuccessful candidates lodged a written grievance under the Local Authority’s grievance procedures. They set out a total of 14 complaints in in relation to the interview process A senior executive officer from HR was appointed to investigate and a hearing took place in April 2017. The SEO considered each of the grievances and did not uphold any part of their complaints. A written decision was issued on the 12th of May 2017 which set out the reasons for the rejection of each complaints about the interview process. None of the other applicants appealed the SEO’s decision. It is submitted that all the grievances set out in in the case herein were raised except the one about the short-listing and that some applicants were shortlisted who did not meet the criteria. It was submitted as this grievance was not raised locally under the internal grievance process that it cannot be raised at this stage. In any event this complaint is rejected because senior officers screened the applications and deemed 15 out of the 16 applicants had the required qualifications and 3 years satisfactory experience and therefore suitable to send forward for interview. As regards the other complaints about the interview process, the SEO said that he fully investigated them and concluded, following a grievance hearing, that there was no merit in them and informed the worker accordingly. He said that there were five competencies under which each candidate was assessed and each candidate was given copy of the competences and explanation of what interview board were seeking. The employer conducts hundreds of interviews per year and each board has a full briefing before the interview but it is up to each individual interviewer how questions are phrased. The interview panel return certain documents to HR such as the marking sheets and comment sheets There are no notes of the questions asked so therefore the worker is basing his complaints on his perception of what happened at the interview. He said that it was an experienced heavy weight fully qualified interview board. The chairperson did not work in the Local Authority. The employer submitted that there is no merit in the complaints and that he is of the view that the interview was conducted in line with the LA’s notes for members of interview boards’ document. It is the employers view that the worker has not accepted the outcome of the interview process and the fact that the board were entitled to decide that there were better suited candidates than him for appointment to the newly created posts. The employer believes that the longlist of grievances has no basis in fact, and accordingly, request that the complaints are dismissed. |
Findings and Conclusions:
It is clear that the worker is very disappointed with the outcome of the interview. He believes that the interview was not conducted fairly and he initiated a formal grievance under the procedures complaining about the conduct of the interview. I note that the employer appointed an investigator from HR to investigate and he did not uphold the complaints stating that he was satisfied that the integrity of the interview process was not compromised. He also stated that it appeared to him that the interview was generally conducted in line with the employer’s notes for members of interview boards’ document. I note that the employer states that they run about three interviews per week and this interview was conducted by a very experienced panel who were briefed beforehand. As there were no notes of either the questions asked or the answers given it is impossible to say that any of the questions asked were inappropriate or contained a subliminal message concerning the worker. It is not possible at this stage to re-establish the conditions or context in which the questions were framed. Therefore, I find no reason to disagree with the findings of the investigators report. I find no merit in the complaints. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.]
I recommend that there is no merit to the dispute in relation to the interview. I am recommending that the employer should consider appointing a note taker to assist interview boards in future to record interviews. |
Dated: 20th March 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marian Duffy
Key Words:
Industrial Relations, conduct of interview. |