Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An employee

An educational establishment

Representatives

Self

Darragh Whelan, Ibec

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-00018918-001

03/05/2018

The Complainant has worked for the Respondent Organisation since July 2003. She is employed as a Clerical Officer.

In 2007 she applied for a permanent grade iv position and after interview she was placed on a panel, she was not appointed to the position during the life time of the panel. She is of the opinion that others who did not do as well in the recruitment process were offered positions ahead of her.

The complaint was lodged with the Workplace Relations Commission on 3rd May 2018.

The following is summarised from the Complainant’s complaint form submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission.

1.       This industrial relations issue relates to being placed position number 1 on the whole time Secretarial permanent panel in 2007 and being overlooked and very unfortunately missing a permanent place.

2.       Throughout my repeated and long-standing claim, the Respondent HR Department has failed to address the core issue, i.e. that appointments were made to permanent Grade IV positions without reference to the relevant Panel which was in place at the time. I was positioned in first place on these Panels.

3.       In March 2008 I was made aware from a HR Staff member over the phone that a staff member had been placed in a permanent position ahead of me. HR staff member advised me that this person had been appointed ahead of me as they were sure I would not want to move from the acting Grade V position i was doing at the time.

4.       I expressed my disappointment and shock at this as I told HR staff member that the Acting V was a contract position.

5.       In November 2008 the then resourcing Manager advised me in writing that I would carry forward and be placed first on the next Grade IV panel since I was Acting Staff Officer (Grade V) for the duration of the panel. Panels always expire so it is obvious that a mistake was made placing others ahead of me as otherwise the panel would have just expired.

6.       In December 2009 as I still had not been appointed, the Resourcing Manager confirmed that I would carry forward onto the latest panel in No.1 position.

7.       April 2011, while finding it incredible that I still had not been appointed, I was advised by the Resourcing Manager that, in occupying position No. 1 I would be considered for the Grade IV position following a colleague’s retirement.

8.       June 2011-March 2013 I was on Maternity leave for the birth of my two daughters in 2011 and 2012 respectively. I had no communication from the Respondent HR Department on this matter over this period

9.       I have pursued this matter since my return from Maternity Leave.

10.   April 2017, I sent a formal letter to the Resourcing Manager in an attempt to get this matter resolved and concluded.

11.   October 2017, HR mailed me the Governing Body details of the panel, confirming three appointees and that I was the only person placed on the original Panel. This information makes the injustice even greater, since it now transpired that individuals who were not on the Panel at all were appointed to permanent Grade IV positions.

12.   I remain deeply upset at the failure of the HR Department to follow approved HR Policy in relation to Staff Appointments in addressing this matter.

13.   I visited HR in early 2018 and it seems for some unknown reason that details of the panel were not included on my file. However, I uncovered further conflicting HR information that I raised with HR... As I had already stated HR confirmed to me in March 2008 that, when I occupied first place on this 2007 Panel, a staff member had been appointed ahead of me on the basis that they were sure I would not want to move from my Acting V Staff Officer position at the time.

14.   I expressed my total dissatisfaction with this. I was advised in writing by the HR Resourcing Manager, in both 2008 and Dec. 2009 that, due to the erroneous process followed by HR, I was carried forward in first place onto the Panels for the subsequent years and would be offered the next available appointment. No appointment emerged over these years and I took this matter to the Union on my return from maternity leave in 2013.

15.   My Union advised me at that time that she had received a phone call from HR seeking information on 2007 Panel appointment as 'HR did not keep details of old Panels on file'. This conflicts with what was stated in her letter to me (Dec 2017) in which she advised that three staff members were appointed during the lifespan of the 2007 panel. I have since discovered that, following one initial immediate appointment made in December 2007, two subsequent permanent appointments were made.

16.   I really want this injustice addressed and to obtain my Grade IV position that I should have been granted. It has been very upsetting and unfair treatment.

Background.

1.       In 2007, a competition took place for an Assistant Staff Officer, Grade IV (Secretarial) post. The Complainant competed for this position which required particular secretarial skills. Following interviews, the selection board recommended three candidates for appointment and recommended the Complainant to be placed on a Secretarial Panel. The Complainant was the only person recommended to the panel. The Panel was valid for 12 months and expired on 4th December 2008.

2.       The staff appointment form confirming the names of the three staff members recommended for appointment and included the name of the panel member (the Complainant) was dated 5th December 2007 and was submitted for approval. The three staff members recommended for appointment were appointed to vacancies on the following dates: 5th December 2007, 4th January 2008 and 16th September 2008. There were no other secretarial vacancies filled in the Respondent organisation between September 2008 and December 2008 when the panel expired. Had a secretarial vacancy arisen between those dates the Complainant would have been offered the position.

3.       Another competition for permanent Assistant Staff Officer, Grade IV (General Administration) took place in 2008. Interviews took place on the following dates: 25th August 2008, 3rd and 4th September 2008. The names of the successful candidates from this competition were submitted on the Appointment Form to the Governing Body for approval on 17th September 2008. Only general administrative vacancies at assistant staff officer level were filled from this competition and from this panel. No secretarial roles were filled form this panel.

4.       It is noted that in July 2007 the Complainant was successful in an Acting (temporary) Staff Officer Grade V position, which she accepted on 11th July 2007. It appears that the Complainant believes that while she was appointed to a temporary Grade V position during the period 3rd September 2007 to 11th May 2008, other staff were appointed to permanent Grade IV positions, notwithstanding that she was first on the panel and should have been appointed to a Grade IV position on a permanent basis. On 12th May 2008, she reverted to her substantive Clerical Officer Grade III post.

Conclusion.

1.       The Complainant believes that other staff were appointed to permanent positions ahead of her. She is unwilling to accept the formal Governing Body records which HR have sent to her and she is unwilling to accept the detailed explanations provided to her by HR initially on 1st March 2012, and more recently in 2018. She is unwilling to accept the explanation provided to the Assistant General Secretary Impact / Forsa Union (now retired) dated 24th June 2014.

2.       The Respondent have respected the Selection Boards recommendation for appointment, formally approved by the governing body, in the competition for Assistant Staff Officer Secretarial Grade IV and the Assistant Staff Officer General Administration Grade IV that took place in 2007 and 2008.

3.       The Respondent cannot make an appointment unless a staff member competes for a position, and is recommended for appointment to that position. Candidates who are placed on a panel following a recruitment competition for a position, cannot be appointed to another position they have not competed for. Specifically, the Complainant could not have been appointed to an Assistant Staff Officer (General Administration) post because she did not compete for such a post.

4.       The Complainant was not appointed to an Assistant Staff Officer (Secretarial) having been placed on the panel, because a vacancy at this grade did not arise during the life of the panel.

5.       The Respondent’s HR personnel consider that every reasonable effort has been made by them over the years to explain the reason why the Complainant was not appointed to Assistant Staff Officer (Secretarial) post before the panel expired on 4th December 2008.

It is difficult to establish what exactly has gone wrong here, this is not helped by the fact that we are referring to events that took place 10/11 years ago.

I noted at the hearing that the Respondent quite clearly stated that no formal grievance had been received from the Complainant in relation to this complaint. This is not helpful.

The conclusion that I have come to is that the Complainant has not really understood the concept of appointees and panel members, I believe that she is of the opinion that she came first in the competition for Assistant Staff Officers (Secretarial) when she actually placed fourth in that competition. The employees in the competition that finished first, second and third were deemed to be the appointees and the fourth placed (the Complainant) was the sole individual to be placed on the panel. The Respondent has pointed out that if there was a fourth appointment within the life span of the panel, the Complainant would have been appointed.

I believe the Respondent HR team have made a genuine effort to explain the entire situation to the Complainant and have also stuck to the rules in the organisation regarding recruitment. There is not much more they could have done.

Having considered the matter in some detail I believe I can only recommend in favour of the Respondent and therefore the complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission has to fail.

The complaint fails.

Recruitment.