FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : HSE NATIONAL AMBULANCE SERVICE SOUTH DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision NoS:Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00025262 ADJ-0025264 CA-00032026 2. The Worker would have been promoted into a Supervisory role if the unsupported reference was not authored. 3. In trying to remedy this issue at local level, the Worker found no genuine engagement from the Employer to try and resolve his disputed position.
2. Management is satisfied that a fair and accurate reference was provided. 3. All offers made are conditional on further requirements, reference checking, health assessment and Garda vetting which was clearly stated in all correspondence.
The Claimant strongly disputes the accuracy of information provided in that reference, which seriously disadvantaged him and prevented him from being placed into a promotional role. The Claimants supervisor was never asked to provide a reference. Instead, references were sought from his line manager, who declined to provide a reference, and his line manager’s manager, who provided the unsatisfactory reference. Although the Claimant raised his concerns about the accuracy of the reference with the recruiting body, having liaised with Management, the recruiting body confirmed the reference remained unsatisfactory. A formal appeal was rejected on the grounds that correct procedures were followed and any matters relating to the accuracy or relevance of details given in references were beyond the scope of the recruiting body. When the claimant attempted to instigate a grievance with his employer, this was not progressed. SIPTU submitted that the Claimant strongly disputes the content of the reference. He was denied an opportunity to provide an alternative referee and was pushed from pillar to post for six months while attempting to have this issue resolved. But for the offending reference, the Claimant would have been appointed to a supervisory role. The Claimant seeks to have this situation remedied by being appointed into a supervisory role. Management submitted that the matter before the Court concerns the integrity of the recruitment process and in this case adherence to the process was observed at all stages. The recruitment process was managed under the remit of the HSE Health Business Services (HBS), which follows the Commission for Public Service Appointments Code of Practice on appointment to positions in the Civil and Public Service. In the Claimant’s case, his line manager was approached but declined to give a reference. The reference provided by a more senior line manager did not recommend the Claimant for the promotional post and, in line with standard procedures under the Commission for Public Service Appointments Code of Practice, the offer was withdrawn. The recruitment process does not allow a candidate to replace one reference with another until such time they obtain a more favourable one. Furthermore, the independent review conducted by the recruiting body found that the recruitment process was fair and compliant with procedures at all stages. The Claimant was not facilitated with a grievance investigation into his complaint as matters relating to recruitment and promotional appointments are more properly addressed through the separate appeals mechanisms available under the recruitment procedure. The accuracy of details given in the disputed reference was beyond the scope of that review and the Claimant was denied an opportunity to progress a grievance through internal procedures. In these circumstances, the failure of management to engage with the Claimant about his issues or process his grievance is a matter of concern to the Court. The Court notes the commitment given by Management at the hearing that, without prejudice to the outcome of any future promotional competitions, any references relating to the Claimant’s current employment will be assessed on a current rather than historical basis.
NOTE |
