ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00020643

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	Records Officer	Aviation Company

Dispute:

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-00027210-001	21/03/2019

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/06/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following 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 is employed as Records Officer. She has claimed that she applied for promotion, but the Employer failed to afford her the appropriate fairness at selection stage. She is seeking compensation.

Summary of Worker’s Case:

The Worker has been in this employment for over thirty years. She currently holds the post of Clerical Grade 2. In April 2018 the Employer advertised the post of Planning Specialist. They stated that an essential criterion was four years in airline maintenance/planning. She met the criteria and so applied. She interviewed for that position but was later told that she was unsuccessful. She made several attempts to seek feedback from the interview process. She contends that the Employer failed to adhere to their own policy and guidelines and in doing so placed her at a disadvantage. On 30th June she received feedback however she disputes the content on that form. In August 2018 she advised her manager that she intended to make a formal grievance. She contends that the individual appointed did not meet the essential criteria and so should not have been appointed. A considerable delay occurred before her grievance was heard on 30th October 2018. On 19th January she was advised that her grievance was not upheld. She is seeking financial compensation for the unfavourable treatment received.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Worker applied for an internal vacancy of Planning Specialist in the Maintenance and Engineering Department. There were 24 applicants including one internal, the Worker. Five were interviewed on 30th April 2018, four external and one internal, the Worker. The interview covered competency and technical-based questions. The post was offered to one of the external candidates however she subsequently declined it and so the post was given to the next placed candidate. The Worker was not successful, but she was afforded a meeting with the recruitment personnel on 4th July 2014 for the purposes of feedback. She has a grievance that the successful candidate did not meet the criteria which left her at a disadvantage and the Employer failed to adhere to their own policies and procedures. An independent manager and an HR person were appointed to deal with her grievance. She was represented by her trade union official during this process. The panel found that the most suitable candidate with the minimum four years required experience declined the offer, the Employer then considered the next four candidates despite the fact that none of them met the essential criteria. Therefore, she could not be considered to have been at a disadvantage. The panel also found that her second complaint was not upheld. They found that an objective recruitment process was conducted. It was pointed out that the candidate with the best answers and scores was selected. Also, the found no evidence that her membership of a trade union had any impact on her application. It was pointed out that despite her long service that this does not automatically entitle her to a promotion. The panel went on the state that a frank conversation should have taken place with the Worker prior to the grievance. It concluded that “a more direct and conclusive approach may have been what was needed”. There was also a comment that she has demonstrated an unwillingness to accept feedback.

This claim is rejected.

Findings and Conclusions:

1) Incorrect first name

I found no evidence that the incorrect use of her first name on an email had any negative impact on the selection process whatsoever.

I find that this was a clerical error and acknowledged as such.

2) Selection process

I find that five candidates were shortlisted and only one met with the determined essential criteria.

I note that that candidate was offered the post but declined.

I find that the other four candidates, three external and one internal, the Worker, were considered despite not making the essential criteria.

Therefore, even at that stage she was not treated less favourably.

I find that the next best placed candidate with the next best answers and score was appointed.

Therefore, I find that the Worker was not treated less favourably.

3) Adherence to Policy and Procedure

I found no evidence of a failure to adhere to company policy and procedure.

4) Union membership

I find that this organisation has a long-established relationship with its unions.

I found no evidence that the Worker was treated less favourably because of her union membership.

5) Delay in dealing with the Feedback and concluding the Grievance

Reviewing the length of time that it took to give the feedback and to conclude the grievance complaint I find that there was an undue delay.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I have decided that the Worker was not treated less favourably

I recommend that the Worker accepts this.

I have decided that the Employer has adhered to its policy and procedure on recruitment and selection.

I recommend that the Worker accepts this.

I have decided that there was an undue delay in giving the feedback and concluding the grievance investigation.

I recommend that the Employer pays the Complainant €1,000 in compensation for this delay. This should be paid within six weeks of the date below.

I recommend that the Employer meets with the Worker to discuss a career plan with her.

I recommend that this discussion should be frank and direct.

I recommend that the Worker should examine herself on how she deals with feedback and address the Employer’s concerns that she may be unwilling to accept it.

Dated: 19th June 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Key Words:

Selection process and adherence to policy and procedure