Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Laboratory Technician

Production & Distribution Company

Representatives

Andrea Cleere SIPTU

Mairead Crosby 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-00035113-001

09/03/2020

The complainant is dissatisfied with the recruitment and selection process for a Quality Assurance Officer position for which she was unsuccessful in her application.

In October 2018, two positions were advertised, Quality Assurance Officer and Lab Supervisor.  The Complainant applied for the Quality Assurance position after she was told by management that a) the absence of a third level qualification would not disqualify her and b) seniority would be taken into account.  The Complainant had over twenty years’ service.  She was interviewed for the role and was disappointed along with many colleagues when the most junior member of staff got the position.   Subsequently, she received very negative interview feedback which upset her.  She lodged a grievance, and this was processed through up to November 2019.  The Union argues that the issue of seniority is of central importance and has a historical context.  It was always an important issue for staff and the company did confirm to the union that suitability and seniority applies to appointments.  In other words when two candidates or more are considered suitable then seniority comes in.  It is argued that the Complainant was disadvantaged by the fact that her experience / length of service was not appropriately weighted in the selection process.

It is submitted that the selection process in this case was transparent, fair and equitable to all candidates.  There were 5 competencies against which all candidates were marked.  The complainant came joint third in the competition.  While she was not disqualified from applying for the position on grounds of not possessing a third level qualification and she did not receive the full marks under this heading, it should be noted that had she received the full marks under this heading, she still would not have received more marks than the successful candidate.   In December 2019, at a meeting with management, the complainant herself admitted that she no longer held the belief that seniority should have been the deciding factor.   The matrix drawn up for the interview process shows the complainant received 31 out of 50 and the successful candidate 37 out of 50.  The complainant raised a grievance on 14 November 2018.  The outcome was that the standardised application of the interview was applied fairly.  In July and August 2019, the complainant and her representatives met with management and requested that she be regraded as Senior Technician and be given a pay increase.  In December 2019, her Union representative requested that she be appointed to the next Quality Assurance role.  Significant to note that at no time during the recruitment campaign were any issues raised by the union that the company were conducting an unfair recruitment process.

Neither did any of the employees who put themselves forward for the position raise

any objection and it was not until the successful candidate was announced that any

issue was raised. The company is very clear, their recruitment process is fair and

equitable to all candidates who applied for the position. Indeed, to have a

predetermined an outcome that would grant the role to a candidate who held seniority

yet proceed through a process would have been disingenuous to all candidates.

It is the position of the Respondent that they have acted fairly and reasonably in dealing

with the Claimant’s grievance.