FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : TEAGASC DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision NoS: ADJ-00026552, CA-00033832-001
The Appellant submits that a promotion competition in which she was a participant was flawed in that (a) the process leading to her submission of an application for the promotional post was not conducted fully in accord with the written procedure, (b) the balance of consideration of her qualifications at interview was inappropriate, (c) disqualification of certain considerations at interview was arbitrary and (d) the decision to assign objective fact based policies and guidelines to the interview board is not what is expected of a well-functioning organisation. The Court notes that the pre-application procedure resulted in the award of a very high score to the Appellant by her Head of Department (HOD) which substantially exceeded the score awarded to the Appellant by the interview board. The Court also notes that the Appellant was successful in the impugned competition in that she has been deemed suitable for appointment to the promotional post and placed at number 10 on the panel. The employer submitted that the outcome of the competition fairly reflected the interview board’s fair assessment of her suitability for the promotional post. The Court does note that certain elements of the pre-application procedure, which is very detailed, were not followed as written. In that context, the Court notes that the Appellant, in making her application, did not avail of the opportunity provided to her on the application form to raise any issue with the process followed by her line manager or Head of Department in supporting her in making her application. The Court is unable to conclude that any flaw in the pre-application process negatively affected the Appellant’s candidacy for the promotional post and neither can it conclude that the interview board conducted itself in any manner other than correctly by reference to the procedure in place for the conduct of the competition. In the course of the hearing of the Court it became clear that 8 people have been appointed to the promotional position as a result of the impugned competition. It also became clear that the panel has been extended by 12 months to July 2022. It is clear therefore that the Appellant is, effectively, now placed at number 2 on the panel for appointment to the promotional position. The Court is unable to agree with the Appellant that the outcome of the competition at issue was unfair to her or disadvantaged her in any way. The Court however notes the very long service of the Appellant and the significance of this promotional position in the context of her career overall. In all of the circumstances therefore, the Court recommends that if the Appellant has not been promoted by the time the panel for promotion expires, the employer should, as a gesture of goodwill made without prejudice and in the interest of good industrial relations, make a payment of €3,000 to the Appellant at the time of closure of the panel in full and final settlement of this trade dispute. The Court so recommends.
NOTE |
