Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Local Authority employee

A Local Authority

Representatives

 Forsa Trade Union

 Local Government Management Agency (LGMA)

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00039423-001

28/08/2020

The worker is employed as a Grade III Clerical Officer since 2004. The dispute arises as a result of a competition for Library Staff Officer (Grade V) which the worker applied for in December 2019.

The Trade Union (on behalf of the worker) stated that the worker was notified in February 2020 that she had been successful in the competition for the Grade V position and was placed 4th on the panel.

The Union contends that the worker was initially notified that the panel would be in place for a period of 12 months and would expire in February 2021. The Union stated that subsequent correspondence from the employer in March 2020 stated that the competition in question was advertised internally and was a “first filling” of the positions identified in the Workforce Plan and that any further vacancies which arose would be filled through a new competition.

The Union stated that at no time during the recruitment process was it clarified to the worker that the competition would result in a “first filling” of vacancies in line with the Library Workforce Plan and Libraries Agreement and that the panel would be terminate thereafter.

The Union contends that the worker, having been successful at interview, was informed that the panel would last for 12 months and a reasonable expectation existed that she would be appointed to the next Grade V position that became available.

The Union stated that it invoked the grievance procedure on the basis that the principles of fair procedures and natural justice had not been applied to the worker and that there was no transparency in the recruitment process. 

The Union is seeking that the worker be appointed to the Grade V position with effect from September 2020 which was the date the vacancy arose.

The employer stated that an agreement was concluded nationally with the Trade Union in relation to the provision of Library Services. The employer’s position is that in line with the provisions of the Agreement, the Trade Union and the Local Authority engage at local level with a view to agreeing a Workforce Plan and subsequently seek approval from the Department of Housing, Planning, and Local Government in relation to its implementation.

The employer stated that once vacancies are approved and in line with Section 5 of the Libraries Agreement; “the filling of the vacancies arising from the Workforce Plan, on a once off basis, can be filled, in the first instance by competition confined to the local authority.” The employer stated that other vacancies are subsequently filled by open competition.

The employer stated that following some informal representations on the matter, the worker utilised the internal grievance procedures on the issue in dispute. The Director of Service issued a decision on the grievance which was appealed to the Chief Executive of the organisation. The decision on the worker’s grievance and on appeal was that the correct procedures had been used in relation to the first filling of the vacancies and the termination of the panel.

The employer acknowledged that the worker had been incorrectly informed that the panel would be in place for 12 months and while it was quickly clarified that this was not the case, the employer regrets the stress that this has caused and the false expectation that it had briefly created. The employer further acknowledged the diligence of the worker in relation to her work and her determination in seeking promotional opportunities within the employment.

The employer concluded by stating that the vacancies were filled in line with the agreement reached with the Trade Union and to recommend in favour of the worker would undermine the principles of that nationally agreed collective process.

The within dispute arises following a recruitment process for a Library Staff Officer post (Grade V). The worker is seeking that she be appointed to the role with effect from September 2020 on the basis that she was successful at interview and that the norm in the sector is that panels last for a period of 12 months. The worker states that she should have been appointed to the next Grade V vacancy as others on the panel had already been placed in permanent positions following the competition.

The employer states that the vacancies for which the competition was held were agreed as part of a Libraries Agreement concluded as a result of a WRC Conciliation Conference with a Workforce Plan being agreed and approved by the Department of Housing Planning and Local Government. The employer contends that, in line with the Agreement, vacancies approved from the Workforce Plan are filled through an internal competition and once filled, the panels are terminated, and future vacancies are filled through open competition.

In this case, the worker was not aware that the panel would terminate after the “first filling” of the vacancies as this had not been clearly outlined in the recruitment process. The worker was also told in error that the panel would last for 12 months as was her understanding of the normal practice within the Sector. On the basis of the lack of transparency and clarity in the process as well as the expectation that was created in relation to the lifetime of the panel, the worker is of the view that she should be placed into one of the vacant Grade V posts within the Local Authority retrospective to September 2020.

I have considered the submissions of both parties to this complaint. It is accepted that the worker is a valued and diligent employee. It is also noted that the lack of clarity in relation to panel timeframes has been addressed by the employer in respect of future competitions.

While I empathise with the workers situation, the vacancies in question were agreed, approved and advertised following a nationally agreed approach with the employer and the Trade Union. It would be inappropriate of a WRC Adjudication Officer to undermine that collective process. On that basis I do not recommend concession of the worker’s claim.

Having considered the submissions of both parties and for the reasons stated, I do not recommend in favour of the worker.

Promotion Competition, Collective Agreement