Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

 Technician

Environmental resource agency

Representatives

Shonagh Byrne SIPTU

Michael McGrath , 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-00032042-001

07/11/2019

The worker commenced employment with the employer in 2008 as a technician on a temporary contract, assuming a permanent position as a technician in 2010. His current salary is €53,000 per annum.

He applied for the position of Research Officer, was interviewed for the position in July 2018 but was unsuccessful.

He maintains that the process was defective. Furthermore, his initial score saw him as the first ranked candidate in terms of competency, but this initial score was later reduced to deprive him of the appointment. The only way to remedy the matter is to appoint him to the position of Research Officer, backdated with retrospection to July 2018.

The worker applied for a Research Officer role in June 2018. There were two positions carrying an annual salary of €55,689.

The selection was not carried out in a fair or transparent manner. The interview was competency based and he finished first on competency in both competitions, yet he was marked second for one position and was not offered the second position which remains unfilled.

He identified the following defects:

There were 14 questions put to the worker at interview. The worker points to the change of marks for question 1, reduced from an initial maximum allowable 100 marks to ten marks during the interview process in July 2018. The worker’s first marks for question 1 reached 80 giving a total score of 985, the successful candidate secured 970 – giving a head start of 15 to the worker. The interview committee’s decision to reduce the marks allowable for question 1 from 100 to 10 altered the worker’s position adversely. Instead of being 15 marks ahead of the successful candidate he now- with a revised mark of 8 out of 10, as opposed to 80 out of a hundred -found himself behind the successful candidate by 57 marks (970 – 913). The original mark of 80 given to him for Question 1 should have stood and he would have outscored the successful candidate A on the competency ranking. Contrary to the employer’s classification of Q 1 as a type of ‘ice- breaker”, the worker maintains that Q 1 was intended to elicit and demonstrate one’s competency. This view is disputed by the employer.

The successful appointee failed in two competency questions in that he got below 60, despite the requirement for all candidates to achieve a mark of 60 in all questions to be considered for the post in question.

The third interviewer failed to record the marks which he awarded to the worker.

The worker wasn’t provided with sample questions prior to the interview, unlike fellow applicants.

He had to wait 3 weeks as opposed to his colleagues who were advised after 2 weeks of their unsuccessful bid for the job.

The second Research Officer position to which he could have been appointed was left unfilled.

He engaged with the company afterwards but not to a satisfactory conclusion.

The successful appointee subsequently left the company.

The worker is seeking to be appointed to one of the two positions.

The employer’s position is that the process employed to fill the two positions of Research Officer in July 2018 was fair and objective and applied to all candidates in a consistent manner. The worker was not not successful in being appointed to either role in 2018, nor in 2020 when he applied again for the role.

 In the selection of candidates for the first Research Officer’s role, another candidate was considered more suitable and for the second role of research officer, none of the three candidates including the worker were deemed to be at the level required.  Thirty-two applied for the two positions, of whom 13 were interviewed; four applicants applied for both roles, so whatever imperfections arose applied to all candidates.

Concerning the defects identified by the worker, the employer does accept that there were imperfections in the process. They accept that while it was valid to only give 10 marks to question 1 as it is an introductory question not designed to elicit in-depth knowledge or competence, it would be preferable for that to have been decided prior to the interview. Concerning the failure of one of the three interviewers to record his mark, the employer stated that the aggregate mark of all three interviewers was recorded in the standard post- interview round up. The employer contests the worker’s statement that any mark below 60 renders the applicant ineligible for appointment. That is not so; this is not a requirement for appointment. The failure to supply a booklet of questions prior to the interview had no impact as they were generic questions unconnected to the role and projects for which he was applying for and were pulled from the internet.

At the time of these interviews a large number of appointments were being made with an understaffed HR department.

 Furthermore, the employer has supported the worker since his unsuccessful application in funding professional development to position him better for any subsequent role which he may apply for.

The company say that the worker is technically excellent but that he has a shortfall in skills needed. They have been identified to him. The employer has supported the worker since his unsuccessful application in funding professional development to position him better for any subsequent role which he may apply for.

The worker is now in a different role within the company and is happier in that role.

None of the imperfections cited would have altered the ranking, resulted in a different outcome or reversed the employer’s conclusion that he did not reach the level required for appointment to  the position of Research Officer. The company has engaged a recruitment specialist to ensure that their recruitment and selection procedures represent best practice.

 To concede his request give him the position of a research officer would open the employer to a slew of other similar requests.

The respondent therefore rejects the claim as without basis.

It is not the function of an adjudicator to second guess the interviewer’s choice unless there is some glaringly evident aberration. The worker’s conclusion that he outperformed on competency is based on his contention that Question 1 should have retained its original marking-it being a core question designed to elicit competency. This is contested. The change is explained as being a proper though  late correction of an overinflated weighting attaching to a particular question which was of far lesser import than any other question.  It is not the adjudicator’s function to ascribe the number of marks which specific questions merit. I cannot conclude that the deficiencies were so significant as to taint the entire process and warrant the appointment of the worker over the company’s choice.

The employer has a responsibility to ensure that the selection and interview processes command the trust and confidence of those who pass through them. This was dented for the worker on receipt of two sets of marks. I note that the company have engaged a specialist to scrutinise their processes. The employer has acknowledged that the worker had a bad experience and has taken steps to prevent a recurrence. In view of this, I recommend that the employer pay the worker the sum of €500 as the experience was unique to him, has been corrected and is unlikely, therefore, to provoke similar claims as contended.

The employer is best placed to anticipate and identify growth areas or developing services within the organisation where vacancies might arise. Growth is probable given the nature of the enterprise.

I recommend that the employer, the worker and his representative identify likely growth areas and, in this way, enable the worker to acquire the experience and training which would position and enhance the worker’s possibility of career progression in new or existing departments.  I recommend that the employer fund any training necessary to secure career progression.

I recommend that the employer pay the worker the sum of €500 as the “bad interview “experience was unique to him.

I recommend that the employer, the worker and his representative identify likely growth areas and, in this way, enable the worker to acquire the experience and training which would position and enhance his possibility of career progression in new or existing departments.  I recommend that the employer fund any training necessary to secure career progression.

Imperfect interview process.