Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Lecturer

A Third Level College

Representatives

SIPTU

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-00022182-001

26/09/2018

The worker commenced employment in 2001, applied for promotion in June 2017 and was advised that she was unsuccessful on 5th October 2017.

The worker claims that her application for promotion was treated unfairly and that there were procedural breaches in the process.

The worker outlined that she appealed the decision regarding her promotion application on 7th January 2018 which was dismissed and the same day that it was dismissed the report of the 2017 Senior Lecturer Promotions Appeal Board was published (29 June 2018). A separate minority report was also issued by an independent assessor on the appeals board referred to as Professor A on 21 June 2018.

There were a number of grounds for the worker’s appeal and these included:

Variations in scoring including where one assessor awarded particularly low scores compared to other assessors.

Incomplete, illegible or missing notes

Historical school disciplinary bias which impacted particularly her and applicants in her discipline and the worker outlined that no member of her School in the university had been promoted since 2007.

It was also put forward that many of the issues which Professor A’s minority report detailed were not referenced in the Report that was put forward by the Appeals Board.   The worker highlighted that it was irrational and unfair not to do so and that overall it was a very unfair process

Case law cited included Medite Europe Ltd & A Worker AD1483

The employer confirmed that the worker lodged an appeal on 7th January 2018 which included reasons for her appeal included variation in marks by assessors, a claim of disciplinary bias and differences in this scheme to another scheme.

An appeals board responded with the outcome to her appeal on 29th June 2018 when she was advised that the appeal board did not uphold the appeal.

On 29th June 2018 the Senior Lecturer Promotion’s Appeal Board provided a report to the governing authority on the promotions scheme which had taken place.  

It was confirmed that Professor A, had issued a report of her findings of the scheme which set out concerns about the quality of the promotion scheme but it was also highlighted by the employer that Professor A did not suggest that she was unhappy with the overall outcome or report of the Appeals Board.

The employer outlined that they are currently in negotiation with the union around further rounds of promotion and when agreement has been reached the worker will be eligible to apply under any new scheme agreed.

It was disputed that the process was unfair and furthermore it would be hugely unfair on those successful to have to rerun the promotions process; some of whom were members of the trade union.

The worker raised a number of reasons for her dispute with the promotion scheme. These included her dissatisfaction with variations in the scoring, particularly by one assessor; missing and incomplete notes; bias towards her discipline as well as discrepancies in the constituency. It was also highlighted that the independent assessor on the appeals board, Professor A, had raised issues in a minority report that were not recognised. I have examined the various documents submitted in detail including after the hearing and I note that the union and the employer are currently working on finalising a Promotions Scheme and this appears to be taking a longer time than one would expect for such an impactful scheme.  

Having reviewed the individual details of this specific dispute I do not see sufficient reasons to uphold the workers specific request that the promotions scheme should be rerun.

However, I am struck by the lack of a formalised detailed processes that would be expected around a promotions scheme such as the one which took place and therefore, my recommendations are as follows:

As a matter of urgency, the employer and union(s) should finalise the promotions scheme, taking on board, if deemed appropriate, the general concerns raised by Professor A.   This should include the risk of bias across schools/disciplines of the university.

Any promotions scheme which is implemented should include a formalised detailed process for each step of the process and those involved with the process. This should include but is not limited to (a) the role of assessors who are tasked with reviewing job applicants such as the one which the worker completed; and (b) the role of members of the appeals board including how the appeals board deals with concerns such as those raised by Professor A.

I recommend as follows:

As a matter of urgency, the employer and union(s) should finalise the promotions scheme, taking on board, if deemed appropriate, the general concerns raised by Professor A.   This should include the risk of bias across schools/disciplines of the university.

Any promotions scheme which is implemented should include a formalised detailed process for each step of the process and those involved with the process. This should include but is not limited to (a) the role of assessors who are tasked with reviewing job applicants such as the one which the worker completed; and (b) the role of members of the appeals board including how the appeals board deals with concerns such as those raised by Professor A.

Promotion, appeal, bias