Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Clerical Officer

Local Authority

Representatives

Tony Martin Fórsa Trade Union

 LGMSA

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-00015427-001

31/10/2017

This case involves a claim by the Complainant in relation to her failure to be appointed to the position of assistant staff officer (ASO) level by the Respondent and compensation for the loss incurred.

The Complainant’s case is that the Respondent failed to offer her the opportunity to take up a position of assistant staff officer (ASO) either on a permanent or acting up basis despite the fact that she was successful at interview stage and was placed fourth on an internal panel in July 2016.   This was following a confined competition due to a vacancy arising in the finance directorate.

At the completion of the competition, the Complainant received a letter from Human Resources dated the 26th of July 2016 stating that the Respondent would contact her should any vacancies arise during the lifetime of the panel.

The Complainant later believed that she was placed number one on the panel as the original number one on the panel was appointed assistant staff officer and numbers two and three were appointed staff officers.

In early 2017 there was an advertisement for any open competition for the filling of an ASO vacancy in line with national agreements. Short listing took place in May 2017. The Complainant applied for the position and was informed that she was not successfully shortlisted. It was at this stage the Complainant was advised that the panel formed in July 2016 no longer existed. The panel was less than twelve months in existence.

The Complainant’s case is that while the correspondence dated the 26th of July 2016 did not state the proposed lifetime of the panel, it is practice throughout the local government sector that all panels are for a twelve-month duration and with agreement they can be extended for a further twelve months.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent failed to use the panel to fill other ASO vacancies within the lifetime of the panel. The Complainant also highlighted a breach of the acting up policy by failing to use someone from the panel to fill a long term acting position that existed.

The Respondent’s case was that recruitment of officer grades is by open recruitment in the local authority section except for grades which are encompassed by the common recruitment pool competition which are clerical administrative grades four to seven. On occasions a confined competition could be run outside of the normal protocols.   There are no precedents or requirement to do this and when it does, it is a “once off” competition and not a replacement for the national protocol.

The Respondent’s case is that in July 2016 they ran a confined competition for the position of assistant staff officer (ASO).

The Respondent’s case was that the lifetime of the panel would remain for twelve months before being disbanded or earlier when another recruitment process was being undertaken.

The Respondent submitted that there were three short term acting up positions during the lifetime of the panel but these were governed by the acting up policy and not from the confined panel.

It further submitted that the January 2017 advertisement was for an open assistant staff officer competition.

Its case was that at all material times it applied the correct local and national protocols regarding its recruitment processes, competitions, panels and appointments.

It pointed out that the Complainant did not object to the open ASO competition in January 2017 and in fact she applied for it.

I have considered the submissions and arguments put forward by all parties and I have no doubt from the submissions made at the hearing that the Complainant is a well-respected employee with the Respondent. However, because of requirements and regulations of public bodies there are different types of competitions (confined competition -v- common recruitment pool/open competition).

The Labour Court has consistently taken the view that it cannot substitute its views on the merits of candidates for promotion for those in the decision-making process.

Hence, in the absence of irregularity in the selection process or irrationality in the result, an adjudication officer cannot intervene.

No submissions were made claiming irregularity in the two separate competitions held.   There is no evidence on which I can conclude that the result of the selection process for the open competition/confined to the common recruitment pool in January 2017 was irrational.

However, given the Complainant’s misunderstanding of the workings of the panel on which he was appointed, I feel it is incumbent on the Respondent to advise the Complainant if and when a panel was being disbanded and also set out that appointment to a confined competition panel does not give any entitlement to recruitment for a role which must be held by open recruitment.  

The appointment of a Complainant to a position of assistant staff officer is not appropriate in this case. However, I do recommend that the Respondent pay to the Complainant compensation in the sum of €200.00 for the breakdown in communications as to the disbandment of the confined panel formed in July 2016 and that it was to fill one position only.

This recommendation is specific to the facts of this case.

Various competitions within the Local Authority sector. Panels. Disbandment of Panel.