Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A staff nurse

A health service employer

Representatives

David Miskell Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation

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-00034650-001

14/02/2020

The employee is a Staff Nurse in a Theatre Department of a regional hospital.

The employee submitted that she suffered disadvantage due to the improper conduct of an interview process and in addition that there was a failure to investigate her grievance in line with the established policy.

The employee submitted that initially she was not put forward for interview for the position of Clinical Nurse Manager.  However, this decision of the Sift Board was overturned on appeal and she was put forward for interview.  She looked for the interview process to be delayed as she was abroad just prior to the interview but this did not happen.

The employee submitted that there was an erroneous rational for the original decision of the Sift Board which was not explained properly and that by using the same board to conduct the interview, the process was flawed and biased against her candidacy.  The employee suggested that the Interview Board should have been made up of different persons to that of the Sift Board.

The employee is seeking compensation and the support of the regional hospital in achieving a comparable position to that of Clinical Nurse Manager.

The employer submitted that the employee was not shortlisted in the original sift process and that this decision was overturned on appeal.  The employer submitted that it was not possible to reconstitute the interview board but notwithstanding this, there was no bias in the interview process.

The employer submitted that under the appropriate guidelines (the CPSA Code of Practice) there is no obligation to stall or suspend a recruitment process upon receipt of a request for a review under Section 7.

The employer submitted that there is no need to recommend compensation in relation to this issue and that although there may have been a delay in response times at some stages of the review process, there was nothing to answer for in relation to the recruitment process.

Having considered the written and oral submissions of both sides, I conclude that it may not be practical to ensure that Sift Boards and Interview Boards are composed of different members.  In addition, I conclude that the extension of the timeframe for interview process, once laid down, and conveyed to each of the candidates was not possible in fairness to all candidates.

I conclude that there is some confusion over the appropriateness of using the Code of Practice (Sections 7 & 8) versus the use of the grievance procedure.

Having considered the written and oral submissions of both parties and following on from my conclusions above, I recommend that the employer give consideration to allowing for a longer lead-in period between sift boards and interview boards in the planning phase of recruitment competitions  This would enable decisions of the sift board to be reviewed and would provide for adequate preparation time for candidates who may be successful in overturning decisions of the sift board to prepare for the interview process.

Having considered the written and oral submissions of both parties and following on from my conclusions above, I recommend that the employer compile a guidance document in conjunction with the employee representative unions as to the effective and efficient use of the Code of Practice review/complaint mechanisms and the Grievance procedures, in relation to such matters as when to use either route and what each is most appropriate for.

Having considered the written and oral submissions of both parties and following on from my conclusions above, I recommend that the employer ensure that there is no delay in communicating results of review/complaint/grievance procedures, particularly to candidates within a recruitment process.   

Having considered the written and oral submissions of both parties and following on from my conclusions above, I recommend that the employer put in place (further) supports to help all staff achieve their potential.

Industrial relations, recruitment process, Sift Board.