LCR21823

• "Having considered all aspects of the complaint I cannot make a recommendation in favour of the Complainant."

The Claimant contends that he understood when applying for a position as Co-ordinator of Human Development in May 2016 that he would, if successful, be appointed to the Grade of Senior Lecturer SL9. He contends that, arising from a statement made by a previous President of the College in 2007 that the Headship of Human Development would be an SL9 in the future, it was notorious that the position he applied for in 2016 was graded at SL9. He asserted that, having been successful in his application, he has been carrying out the same role and functions as the previous holder of the role who had been grade at SL9.

The College submitted that the previous incumbent in the role had taken up the position of Head of School of Human Development and that the Claimant did not carry out the same function as she had carried out while carrying out a role entitled Co-ordinator of Human Development. The College also submitted that it had at no time advised applicants for the position in 2016 that the role would be at the grade of SL9. It advised the Court that mechanisms for appointment of staff to the position of SL9 were agreed with Trade Unions and that any such competitions required Presidential approval. The College asserted that the impugned appointment in 2016 was not made in accordance with the agreed procedure for SL9 appointment and was not the subject of Presidential approval. The Trade Union did not contest these assertions.

It was common case that, in 2016, opportunities for promotion to the grade of SL9 were much sought after among eligible candidates. There were two applicants for the impugned role in May 2016 but there were 18 applicants for a formally convened competition for promotion to SL9 initiated in July 2016.

It is not the role of the Court to act as a job evaluation forum. The Court has been presented with two job descriptions of which one was used in 2010 upon appointment of the Claimant’s predecessor and one was used in 2016 in the competition leading to the Claimant’s appointment. On the face of those documents the roles described do not appear identical although the Court makes no finding in that regard.

The Court takes particular account of the view expressed by the then Interim Executive Dean in 2016 who asserted in writing in September 2016 that the post for which the Claimant competed was ‘equivalent to programme Chair duties and nothing else’. It is accepted by the parties that programme Chair duties do not, of themselves, carry the grade of SL9 in the College. The Executive Dean was, the Court understands, the person responsible for the conduct of the impugned competition and who authorised its execution.

The Court considers that the nomenclature of the post as advertised in 2016 left the matter of grade open to potential misunderstanding by potential candidates. However, no other material has been put before the Court which would support the contention that the College intended to or did conduct a competition for promotion to SL9 outside normal procedures and without required approval. The Court notes that only two persons applied in response to the request for expressions of interest in the impugned post while within two months 18 candidates, including the Claimant, applied for a promotion to SL9 by way of a competition which specified that it was for appointment to that Grade.

In all of the circumstances, the Court concludes that whereas the Claimant may have assumed that the competition in which he participated could result in appointment to the Grade of SL9 no such statement was ever made to him in the advertisement or conduct of the competition. The Court notes that the statement of the then President in 2007 referred to a Headship of Human Development rather than a post with the title of Co-ordinator of Human Development. The Court has been unable to conclude that the post of Co-ordinator of Human Development as advertised in 2016 corresponded with the post described as Headship of Human Development by the President in 2007. The Court notes that other eligible staff who applied for an SL9 competition in July 2016 could have competed for the impugned appointment but did not do so despite what, on the face of it, appears to have been significant interest in promotion to grade SL9.

In all of the circumstances the Court is unable to support the claim before it and does not recommend its concession. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Foley
CR______________________
15 November, 2018.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.