Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Administrative Officer

A Local Authority

Representatives

Maura Cahalan Forsa Trade Union

Amanda Kane L.G.M.A.

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-00042845-001

04/03/2021

The worker received a recommendation from the WRC and claims that the employer did not engage in constructive and meaningful discussion.

The worker submits that she submitted a dispute to the WRC regarding the “the withdrawal of the offer of the position of Senior Executive Officer (SEO)” and a recommendation ADj-26401 was issued which set out:

              “That the Complainant be paid the sum of €1000 in respect of the delays in concluding the internal investigation and in processing her grievance;

              That the Complainant and Respondent immediately commence constructive and              meaningful discussions with a view to establishing how the Complainant’s position on the national panel – following the 2018 SEO recruitment campaign – can be progressed so that she may be appointed to an SEO position in early course. This recommendation is subject to compliance with all necessary PAS recruitment procedures.”

The worker submits that the employer did not appeal this recommendation dated 10 November 2020.  

On 25 November 2020 the union sought engagement with the employer who responded on 27th November 2020 advising that they would review the file and revert back but no contact was received from the employer.  On 5th January 2021 the union wrote again requesting an update and a meeting was scheduled for 15 January 2021.  At this meeting management advised that the responsibility of staff resources is a function of the CEO and that any request for an SEO role would be sent by the employer to PAS and that there was no request with PAS currently to fill a position of SEO.

On 1st April 2021 the employer approved payment of the €1,000 from the recommendation, “in respect of the delays” but never engaged in constructive and meaningful discussions and the SEO panel has now expired.  The worker outlined that she did not apply for the new panel which had been established.

Following a decision from the Workplace Relations Commission (Adj-00026401) the employer received an email from the union on 25th November 2020 requesting that the matters be progressed.  The employer was unaware that a Recommendation had been issued and a meeting was scheduled for 15th January 2021.  The employer advised the worker that it would not be possible to appoint her to an SEO position as there were no plans to fill a SEO position at that time.  The union sought assurances that the worker would be appointed to the next available SEO position and the employer advised that this would not be possible.  The union advised that they would appeal the decision of the Recommendation Adj-00026401 but did not appeal it.

On 2nd November 2020 the SEO position from the 2018 recruitment campaign expired and it was submitted that the employer cannot make an appointment outside the prescribed process nor does it have a vacancy for an SEO.

The employer submitted that the worker cannot look to have her case resubmitted and reheard which is what she was looking to do.  It was also submitted that the employer had compiled with the terms of the Recommendation Adj-000026401 but that it was not possible to appoint the worker to a role that did not exist.

The worker confirmed that she was not looking for a rehearing of her previous dispute and that her dispute was that the employer did not engage in a meaningful discussion as per the Recommendation and failed to appoint her to an SEO position. 

I note that a recommendation was issued dated 10th November 2020 which sets out

              “That the Complainant be paid the sum of €1000 in respect of the delays in concluding the internal investigation and in processing her grievance;

It was agreed between the parties that the employer has paid the sum of €1,000.

The recommendation further sets out that:

              That the Complainant and Respondent immediately commence constructive and meaningful discussions with a view to establishing how the Complainant’s position on the national panel – following the 2018 SEO recruitment campaign – can be progressed so that she may be appointed to an SEO position in early course. This recommendation is subject to compliance with all necessary PAS recruitment procedures.”

At the hearing of 4th June 2021, it was clear that the worker and employer disputed the application of Adj-26401.  I am satisfied having heard from the parties, that the worker is not looking for a rehearing of her previous dispute. 

I find that the recommendationclearly sets out that the appointment of the worker to an SEO positionwould be subject to compliance with all necessary PAS recruitment procedures and it is clear that such procedures should not be bypassed (my emphasis).  It is unfortunate that the worker did not apply for the most recent SEO panel that had been advertised.

The employer submitted that following the recommendation they met with the CEO prior to the meeting with the union and the worker.  The CEO advised that there was no SEO position available and that even if a vacancy arose it would be filled from a panel which the worker was no longer a part of.

I do find it surprising that the employer presented this decision at the meeting on January 15 2021.  which appears to have been a meeting held without urgency or “constructive and meaningful” discussions.  The decision of the CEO appears to have been presented as a fait accompli to the worker.

On that basis I recommend the employer pays the worker €3,000 for their failure to engage immediately, constructively or in a meaningful manner with the worker and in recognition of the unique circumstances of this case.

I recommend the employer pays the worker €3,000 for their failure to engage immediately, constructively or in a meaningful manner with the worker and in recognition of the unique circumstances of this case.

Industrial relations