ADJ-00010015

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Local Authority

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-00013086-001

11/08/2017

The worker contends that following his appointment from the third officers panel to an acting third officer position, he was treated less favourably than a fellow worker who was also in an acting position. He submits the panel was extended and this person was appointed to a permanent position. The worker was next on the panel and another permanent position became available and the employer refused to extend the panel further and appoint him to the position.

The worker commenced employment with the Fire Brigade in 1991. In April 2014, following a competitive interview process for third officer positions, a panel was formed. The worker was placed 4^th on the panel of eight. The two highest placed candidates were immediately appointed to the posts. The panel was to run for one year but it was extended for another twelve months. During this period the third highest place candidate was appointed to an acting third officer position when a colleague went on a career break.

In November 2016, a third officer retired creating a permanent vacancy. The panel was extended and the acting officer was given the permanent vacancy.   The worker who was fourth on the panel was then appointed to the acting third officer position.

In June 2017, the position of permanent third officer became available following a retirement. The employer, in this instance sought to replace the post with an acting position and canvassed senior employees to fill the permanent position in an acting capacity. An appointment in an acting capacity was duly made. The worker believes that because he is carrying out the role in an acting capacity prior to the 31^st December 2016, he should have been appointed into the permanent role.

The worker raised the issue with his employer in July 2017, through his trade union representative.

The union argument is that the employer treated the complainant’s work colleague, who was number 3 on the panel, far more favourably than him when appointing him to the permanent position. Currently the post of permanent third officer is available, the employer has made no effort in commencing an interview process, therefore in appointing the worker does not place him at any advantage. The union is seeking the appointment of the worker to the position in a permanent capacity.

A recruitment competition for the post of third officer was advertised in 2014 and following an interview process a panel of eight was formed to fill current and future vacancies was formed on 31^st of March 2014.

Initially the panel had a life of one year but by the Managers order it was extended for a year to the 30^th of March 2016. A further extension to the life of the panel was granted on the 23^rd of November 2016 to the 31^st of December 2016.

The worker applied for the post and was placed 4^th on the panel. On 1^st of April 2014, two vacancies for third officer existed and the top two were appointed from the panel. A further vacancy arose following the retirement of a third officer and the candidate placed 3^rd was appointed on the 8^th of November 2016 and no further vacancy arose before the expiry of the third officer panel on the 31^st of December 2016.

It was submitted that there is no statutory requirement for a promotional panel to elapse after a specific period of time and in many case a panel will be exhausted before its expiry date.

The employer states it reserves the right to extend the life of any such panel where there are persons remaining on a panel and there is a reasonable expectation that a further appointment may be made.

The worker has acted in the post of third officer since the 8^th of November 2016 as a result of the post holder taking a career break.

A third officer retired in June 2017 which was not anticipated and the position has been filled on an acting basis. The panel has lapsed since the end of December 2016 and cannot be extended as requested by the worker. It is proposed to run a new competition to fill the permanent position. The worker can compete for this new post. The third officer who is on career break is returning in January but the worker will continue in an acting post of third officer.

As a public body the employer said that they are guided by the Public Appointment Services where recruitment panels do not normally extend beyond two years.

The employer stated that they intend running a competition to fill the third officer post during this year.

I note that when the permanent post arose in June 2017 the panel had lapsed since December 2016 so it was not possible to offer the worker a permanent post. The employer stated that it is not normal for a panel to run for more than two years but the extension was requested to fill one vacancy. When they requested HR to extend the panel in November 2016 it was not anticipated that another vacancy would arise in June 2017 as this retirement was unexpected.

It is unfortunate that the worker missed out on getting the permanent post, but it seems that in the public service panels usually last for about two years. It seems that the respondent was following normal procedures in relation to the duration of the promotion panel and that it is not possible to reopen it. Accordingly, I am not in a position to make a recommendation favourable to the complainant as petitioned.

I am not in a position to make a recommendation that the worker should be appointed to the permanent position.

Industrial relations, request to extend promotion panel