FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No’s: ADJ-00029303 CA-00039423-001. On 15 June 2021 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation: “Having considered the submissions of both parties and for the reasons stated, I do not recommend in favour of the worker’’. Labour Court hearing took place on 16 September 2021. 2. If the panel had remained in place for 12 months she would have been appointed to a position at Grade V. EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS: 1. The confined competition was an exception to the norm and related to two specific vacancies in line with the Libraries Agreement, the Workforce Plan and Departmental sanction. When those two posts were filled the panel expired. The normal established practice in the Local Authority and Sector are that vacancies are filled by Open Competition. 2. The advertisement for the competition did not state that a panel would remain in place for 12 months.
It is clear that the normal practice in the employment is that, by agreement, all vacancies are advertised either openly or to the entire sector. It is not disputed by the parties however that, by virtue of agreements concluded nationally between the parties, where the Workforce Plan results in new posts, those posts can be advertised, in the first instance only and on a once off basis, by way of a competition confined to the local authority itself. It is also undisputed that two Library Staff Officer positions at Grade 5 resulted from the Library Workforce Plan completed in 2019. In line with agreements therefore, the first filling of these posts was by means of a competition confined to the local authority only. It is now common case that only two persons were appointed from the panel formed as a result of the confined competition. This, in the Court’s view, reflects the nature of the competition and sanction associated with the conduct of the confined competition as an exception to normal agreed arrangements for the filling of vacancies in the sector. The Trade Union seeks to have the Claimant, who was placed fourth on the relevant panel, appointed to a grade 5 position in the local authority. The Trade Union cites a lack of clarity and inconsistency of communication to the Claimant as a basis for her claim. The Court can accept that the Council could have been clearer in the advertisement of the confined competition and that more effective communication internally and with the Claimant might have assisted in the avoidance of the current dispute. The Court does not believe however that any basis exists for the proposition that, contrary to the agreements generally applying in the sector, the confined competition conducted to fill two vacancies only should be extended so as to result in three appointments from the panel. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim. The Court so recommends.
NOTE |
