Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Employee

Employer

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-00031915-001

31/10/2019

This dispute is concerned with a placement on a panel for appointment to a full-time CID post.

On behalf of the employee SIPTU gave an account of the employee’s history of employment initially as a part-time temporary basis and then converting to CID still on a part time basis. He has applied for appointment to a full time CID post as recently as October 2019 but was unsuccessful on each occasion. Issues around his conflicting   placements on an earlier panel were described. In relation to the most recent appointment process in 2019, in spite of taking on board and applying feedback advice from previous interviews his position actually disimproved. A candidate with less IT skills and experience scored higher than he did and there were issues around the note taking and what was presented as a contradiction between notes and a score where the note suggested the score should have been higher. There were three interviewers but only one notetaker. There was no account taken of experience in the process.

To resolve the dispute the Union sought a recommendation that the employee would be appointed to the next available vacancy in his area where vacancies due to retirement remained unfilled. Alternatively, that the employer would agree to a confined competition for the same posts.

IBEC sought that the claim be dismissed as the employee had failed to provide any evidence that the selection process was anything other than objective and fair. The union and HR had spoken about the case in January when the employer’s position was fully explained i.e. that there was no unfairness in the process.

In relation to the process of filling posts in October 2019, the employee had applied for a full-time position and was listed as one of ten people to be interviewed, eight of whom had worked with the employer previously . There were two vacancies in the area to be filled. The employer uses a competency-based interview selection process. Those appointed had two and three years previous experience. Fifty % of those on CIDs as part time employees have been successful in obtaining full time posts through the same interview process. There is no barrier preventing those who are part time becoming full time through the process. The interview panel agreed that one person would take notes. Scores were accumulated at the end on a relative basis measured against all performances. Regarding the point about the IT score, the note should be ready differently than the meaning taken by the employee, adding that even if the full score for that competency was awarded to the employee ,it would not have moved him up to a selection place on the panel. The members of the interview panel had agreed that there would be one notetaker for all interviews. In November 2019, the employee was informed by HR of the details around the scoring, stating that there was nothing unfair about the process and the employee was not unfairly treated. IBEC stated that a recommendation that the appointment of the employee to the next vacancy would cause all manner of difficulties including appeals from other employees against the outcome of selection processes where they were dissatisfied with outcomes.

I have considerable sympathy for the employee. He has an unblemished service record. Having worked as a temporary later CID employee on a part-time basis for eight years, he again competed for a full-time post and in spite of taking on board feedback from previous efforts, he finds himself unable to make the break through to the upper tier of successful candidates. A situation where he is merely seeking additional hours of work must be particularly difficult for him. Clearly the competency at interview only format works to his disadvantage. Generally speaking, he would not be alone in finding this type of format difficult to manipulate to best effect. And it would not be unreasonable of him to question a format where someone with less skills in a particular area and /or less experience of doing the same job achieves a higher score.

Regarding the scoring, the points made by the employee’s representative have merit-taking the apparent discrepancy between some of the commentary and scoring at face value. There is the relative scoring by the panel at the conclusion of all interviews which was not known to or certainly understood by the employee in this case. In other words, it would appear that he had to do well at his own interview and then do even better relative to others in the competition. This adjudicator is not going to arrive at conclusions based on an assessment of this methodology as it applies to this one employee other than to note that the methodology is not entirely transparent and left the scoring open to doubt where there was only one set of notes and a comment which appeared to contradict the actual score.

While understanding the concerns of the employee in this dispute, the remedy sought is not justified by his concerns partly because all applicants were subjected to the same process; partly because even a maximum score for the IT section would not have altered his rating to such an extent that he would have been successful and partly because of implications for others outside of this employee. It is for these reasons that the appointment of the employee to the next vacancy is not recommended as justified.

The issues raised by the trade union, of holding a confined competition for designated vacancies is a collective issue-as would be seeking to have the factors used in such competitions extended to give some weight to experience-as would be discussing the format of the interviews and the scoring mechanisms as applied by interview panels. This conclusion provides further reasons why the remedy sought by the employee is not recommended.

I recommend that the employee accept that he has received a full and impartial hearing of his dispute and that, while his claims have not been upheld by this third party, that he regards his issues with the competition of October 2019 to be closed.

Disputed appointment process