Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Psychiatric Nurse

A mental Health Service provider

Representatives

Peter Hughes Psychiatric Nurses Association

Valerie Madigan

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00028833-002

CA-00028833-03

CA-00028833-004

04/06/2019

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent since March 2000 as a staff nurse working in the Psychiatric Services.  Resulting from his employment he had a number of grievances where he believed he was treated in a manner contrary to the Respondents’ guidelines and best practice, as well as accepted custom and practice in the mental health area.  Specifically, he raised concerns in relation to the decision to initially appoint nursing colleagues into an acting managerial position, despite him being placed in a higher position on a national panel and on another occasion the person placed in the post was on no panel at all.  He also raised a grievance in relation to concerns that his interview for an interim Clinical Nurse Manager 3 position in the Mental Health Services where he believed he did not receive a full and impartial interview as defined in the Respondents’ guidelines and procedures. 

The Complainant submitted the following 3 complaints:

·                   CA- 00028833-02          Complaint under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

regarding acting up arrangements

·                   CA- 00028833-03          Complaint under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

regarding a trade dispute

·                   CA- 00028833-04          Complaint under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

alleging that he was not afforded a fair and impartial interview as defined by the Public Appointments Commission on public servant appointments.

The Respondent is a National Health Service Provider and specifically in this instance dealing with Mental Health Services.  The Respondent advised that they did not receive details of each of the complaints contained in the WRC complaint and in that context could only submit responses to those complaints of which they were notified.  The Respondent indicated that they had no knowledge of the substantive issues relating to CA-00028833-03.  In general, the Respondent denied the allegations and submitted that the Complainant was dealt with reasonably in relation to all matters. 

Clarification re CA-00028833-03

This Adjudicator sought clarity in relation to the complaint CA-00028833-03 in light of concerns raised by the Respondent and on the basis that no details relating to the complaint were contained in either the complaint form or the Complainant’s submission.  The Complainant and his representative confirmed that CA-00028833-03 was a duplicate of CA-00028833-02.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a staff nurse in March 2000 but left to take up a Deputy Nursing Officer post in another location some six months later.  Prior to that the Complainant had emigrated to the UK in 1989 to train as a Psychiatric Nurse and had worked in a number of clinical and managerial positions in the UK until he returned to Ireland in March 2000.  The Complainant worked in the Deputy Nursing Officer post until he was offered a Nursing Officer post in the first location and rejoined the staff of that location twelve months after his initial departure.  Soon after, the Complainant became an active union member and was instrumental in bringing about a number of changes within the service.  Over the years the Complainant had brought a number of cases to the Rights Commissioner, Workplace Relations Commission and Labour Court which, he submitted, had caused some difficulties between him and members of hospital management, thus leading to an acrimonious relationship developing over time.  The Complainant submitted that in 2015, he attended an interview where he was placed on a panel in July 2015 for upcoming CNM3 posts.  He submitted that subsequent to this the following occurred:

·       14th December 2016 – An email was circulated to Clinical Nurse Manager 1’s and CNM2’s with an attachment requesting expressions of interest for an acting panel for ADON positions which had eligibility criteria. 

·       The Complainant, having reviewed the eligibility criteria, did not apply as he did not have a level 8 qualification.

·       In April 2017, the Complainant became aware that another employee was redeployed to the Allocations Office as an acting CNM3 and made enquiries as to why he had not been approached, as he had been placed higher on the same interview panel. 

·       9th May 2017 – An email was received from the National Recruitment Service informing him that the interview panel he was on was to expire that day, 14 months earlier than had been the practice in the Mental Health Services up to that date.  The Complainant submitted that interview panels are usually expired after three years. 

·       29th June 2017 – The Complainant sent an email to the Director of Nursing enquiring why he had not been asked to work as the acting CNM3 and no response was received.

·       30th June 2017 – The Complainant sent an email to the Director of Nursing regarding the expression of interest for acting ADON that was circulated in December 2016 asking to be placed on the acting ADON panel as he was aware none of the managers on the panel met the eligibility criteria circulated and no interviews had taken place.

·       The Complainant also sent an email to the Director of Nursing enquiring why a Community Nurse had been asked to shadow staff in Allocations with a view to him providing cover.  No response was received.

·       17th September 2017 – The Complainant sent an email to the Director of Nursing, again enquiring why a Community Nurse was acting into a managerial position and why he was being omitted from acting up in the Nursing Administration Office. 

·       22nd September 2017 – The Director of Nursing responded to an earlier email, possibly from the 17th September, informing the Complainant they were using lists of people from three panels to act up in the office.  The Complainant responded to the Director of Nursing’s earlier email making reference to his email of the 30th June, asking what panels he was referring to, as he had been placed on a CNM3 panel, but again he received no response.

·       25th March 2018 – The Complainant wrote to the Director of Nursing requesting a meeting under stage 1 of the Grievance Procedure to address a number of grievances he had been unable to resolve.

·       29th March 2018 – The Complainant received a letter from the Acting Assistant Director of Nursing and another ADON inviting him to a meeting on the 5th April 2018 under stage 1 of the Grievance Procedure. 

·       7th April 2018 – The Complainant received the response from the meeting held on the 5th April.

·       30th May 2018 – The Complainant received a letter from the Director of Nursing inviting him to an interview on the 14th June 2018 for a temporary CNM3 post for which he had applied. 

·       26th June 2018 – The Complainant received a letter from the Director of Nursing dated  21st June 2018 informing him that he had been unsuccessful in his interview for the temporary Clinical Nurse Manager 3 post.  The Complainant emailed the Director of Nursing appealing the decision of the interview panel as he did not believe he had received an impartial interview and interview guidelines had not been complied with.

·       28th June 2018 – The Complainant wrote to the Director of Nursing requesting a meeting under stage 2 of the Grievance Procedure to appeal the decision made under stage 1 which he believed did not adequately address his complaints.

·       24th July 2018 - The Complainant received correspondence offering a meeting under stage 2 of the Grievance Procedure on the 31st July 2018, however the meeting was subsequently rescheduled. 

·       8th August 2018 – The stage 2 meeting took place between the Complainant, the Director of Nursing, another acting ADON and the PNA representative, the response to this was received a couple of days later.

·       August 2018 – The Director of Nursing responded to the Complainants’ email dated 26th June, informing him his request for a review of the temporary CNM3 interview had ended up in his junk mail folder.

·       14th August 2018 – The Complainant responded to this email stating his displeasure at the delay and requested that the issue be expedited.

·       17th August 2018 – The Complainant received an email from the Director of Nursing advising him he had sought advice on the process regarding interview appeals from HR and the National Recruitment Service.

·       20th August 2018 – The Complainant wrote to the Director of Nursing informing him his letter dated 8th August was not a true reflection of what was discussed at the Stage 2 Grievance Meeting held on the 8th August and while some of his grievances had been addressed, there were serious matters outstanding and that he would now appeal the outstanding grievances under stage 3 of the Grievance Procedure.

·       25th August 2018 – The Complainant received a letter dated 20th August from the Director of Nursing requesting further information about his complaint on the interview process to which the complainant obliged.

·       11th September 2018 – The Complainant received a letter from the Director of Nursing advising him that his complaint regarding this temporary CNM3 interview had been referred to the Chair of the interview panel.

·       29th August 2018 – The Complainant wrote to the National Industrial Relations Manager requesting a meeting under stage 3 of the Grievance Procedure.

·       13th September 2018 – The Complainant attended a meeting under stage 3 of the Grievance Procedure at which he was represented by the PNA.  The meeting was conducted by the Employee Relations Manager and another member of the Employee Relations staff. 

·       12th October 2018 – The Complainant wrote again to the Director of Nursing dated the 8th  October 2018 seeking clarification on his complaint regarding the interview process for the temporary CNM3 post. 

·       12th October 2018 – The Complainant received correspondence from the Employee Relations Manager dated the 10th October informing him that she had requested a full review from the Director of Nursing of the points raised in his stage 3 Grievance meeting on the 13th September.  This letter was accompanied by a letter from the Director of Nursing dated the 8th October with his response where he referenced the Complainant as the PNA Branch Secretary and suggested his motivation was financial compensation.

·       17th October 2018 – The Complainant wrote to the Director of Nursing expressing his disbelief that it was inappropriate for the Director of Nursing to be conducting a review of the interview he had held and advising him he was now seeking the assistance of the Commission for Public Service Appointments.

·       18th October 2018 – The Complainant sent an email to the Employee Relations Manager requesting a meeting to address the points raised by the Director of Nursing in his letter dated the 8th October 2018.  He also send an email to the Employee Relations Manager requesting a review of the temporary CNM3 interview following advice from the Public Service Appointments Commission.

·       26th October 2018 – The Complainant received correspondence from the Director of Nursing dated the 22nd October informing him that he was conducting an informal review of his complaint regarding the temporary CM3 post interview.  The Complainant responded, once again stating his frustration at the delays. 

·       24th February 2019 – The Complainant wrote to the Employee Relations Manager advising that he did not believe his grievances had been addressed and he would seek the assistance of the WRC Adjudication Service. 

·       24th February 2019 – The Complainant wrote to the Employee Relations Manager informing her that he was referring the matter to the WRC. 

·       14th March 2019 – A letter was received from the Director of Nursing informing him that the review of his interview for the temporary CM3 post, had been completed. 

The Complainants’ Grievances:

Issue Number 1

The Complainant attended an interview for a permanent CNM3 post with the service in June 2015 which was conducted by the Director of Nursing and an Assistant Director of Nursing, both employees of the service, which, the Complainant submitted, is contrary to the organisations guidelines for conducting structured interviews.  The Complainant submitted that those guidelines state: “When developing an interview board, the following principles should always apply.  Interview boards should consist of three people; 

·       An internal expert

·       An external clinical expert (external to the location, not the organisation)

·       An independent Chairperson (external to the location …)

Also, it is crucial that interviewers are aware that they, like everyone, have biases (perhaps so inherent that they are not aware of them) and they should not let them effect their conduct and decision making during the interview process.  Interviewers must be objective and maintain an open mind over the course of the whole interview.  The time during the interview is to be spent gathering evidence in relation to the candidates’ skills and abilities; time is dedicated to evaluating candidates after the interview.  Board members should also be aware of the dangers of making judgements based on whether the person appeals to or is similar to them, e.g., as regards, age, gender, background, experience etc, particularly in light of international candidates”. 

The Complainant did not feel that the interview gave sufficient weight to his substantial experience in the UK, which although it had been prior to 2000, was considerable.  However, because the Complainant was panelled and he was aware that there were a number of positions arising over the next three years, he submitted that he decided not to appeal the decision of the interview because he believed he would ultimately receive a position over the course of the next three years.  The Complainant submitted that this proved costly to him when he received notification that he panel on which he was listed was to expire some 14 months earlier than had been the accepted practice in the service up to that time. 

Issue Number 2

In December 2016, an expression of interest was circulated to all managers in the service via email with an attached eligibility criteria.  Having reviewed the criteria, the Complainant did not apply as he did not have the necessary qualifications.  However, over the next number of weeks, the Complainant became aware that a panel of nursing managers had been formed to act in the position of ADON, although no interviews had been conducted.  Over the next few months, the Complainant was informed of the makeup of this panel and it became apparent to him that no one on this panel met the eligibility criteria that had been included with the expressions of interest and so he wrote to his Director of Nursing to request that his name be added to the panel of nurse managers who would be working in an acting capacity as ADON’s.  However the Director of Nursing refused his request which he believed to be unreasonable as he had abided by the content of the email circulated in December 2016 and did not believe he should be penalised for abiding by the content of that email. 

Issue Number 3

In April 2017 the Complainant became aware that one of his colleagues had been redeployed to work in the Allocations Department as an acting CNM3.  This employee had done the same CNM3 interviews in 2015 as the Complainant but had been panelled lower on the panel than the Complainant.  The custom and practice in the service is that staff who are successfully panelled for positions, are called upon to act in the positions they were successfully panelled in.  The Complainant wrote to the Director of Nursing enquiring as to why he had been passed over for this position despite being placed higher on the panel.  The Director of Nursing responded claiming that the employee in question had been given his position from the acting ADON panel which had been formed from the expressions of interest circulated in 2016.  The Complainant submitted that neither he nor the employee appointed to the acting CNM3 post met the criteria to apply for that position.  Furthermore, the Complainant submitted that the Director of Nursing’s response did not make sense as the post was an acting CNM3 post, not an ADON post and the Complainant believed that he had been placed higher on the panel for CNM3 positions and that therefore he should have been at least approached to see if he was interested in the post.  

Issue Number 4

Subsequent to the Complainants’ enquiry regarding acting up in the CNM3 post, he also became aware that the Director of Nursing had also placed a Community Mental Health Nurse in an acting CNM3 post in the Allocations Department, again ignoring his position on the panel and accepted custom and practice.  The Complainant found this appointment particularly upsetting as a Community Mental Health Nurse is generally not a member of the management structure and he viewed this as a deliberate attempt to exclude him from acting up in the Allocations Office.

Issue Number 5

In June 2018 the Complainant again attended an interview, this time for a temporary CNM3 position and again found the interview panel to be in breach of the organisation’s guidelines regarding the makeup of the interview board.  The interview board on this occasion consisted of the Director of Nursing and a different ADON who was also an employee of the same service, again contrary to the guidelines already mentioned.  The Complainant submitted that he did not believe that he was interviewed in an impartial and fair manner and that the interview process was not applied to him in a manner consistent with what was laid out in the supplementary guidelines.  The Complainant drew attention to section 2 of the Commission for Public Service Appointments Guidelines, where they address the recruitment principles by which the interview process should be guided.

·       Principle 1 – The Complainant submitted that principle 1 insists that acceptable standards of probity are adhered to and submitted that he did not believe he was treated with impartiality or fairness on this occasion as he had a complaint against one of the interviewers, ie the Director of Nursing, under the Dignity at Work Policy, as well as recent complaints made against another of the interviewers, neither of which had been addressed at the time of the interview.  The Director of Nursing had also stated in a meeting that the Complainants’ CV was a work of fiction, clearly demonstrating that it was not possible for the Complainant to receive an impartial interview. A complaint lodged under the Dignity at Work Policy regarding the Director of Nursing’s’ comments about the Complainants’ CV being a work of fiction, has since been upheld following an investigation by the organisation. 

·       Principle 2 – The Complainant submitted that principle 2 asks that appointments are made on merit and stated that he did not believe that he was interviewed/assessed in a fair manner that took into account his significant experience in the UK compared to the other candidates. 

·       Principle 4 – The Complainant stated that principle 4 states that the appointment process must be applied with consistency, however he stated his experience in the UK was disregarded and he was asked to provide more recent examples, contrary to the guidelines supplied by the National Recruitment Service, which state that he should provide his best examples.  This placed him at a disadvantage to other candidates who had less experience, but experience that was more recent.  The Complainant submitted that the supplementary question guidelines state that he must give the best examples of where he has demonstrated a skill or quality, however he was not allowed to do this at interview because the examples supplied on the application form were disregarded and when he was asked to give another example, again this was rejected as it was from his time in the UK.  He submitted that he was then asked for another more recent example which unfairly disadvantaged him.  He stated that he tried to address this in the interview by stating the NRS guidelines however the interviewer then decided to proceed without giving any opportunity to give an example at all.  The Complainant stated that this disadvantaged him by giving an opportunity to other candidates with significantly less experience than him because of the fact that their experience is more recent, even if not as broad.  The Complainant submitted that in light of this experience he appealed the interview board decision and after a protracted process where he attempted to have his interview reviewed by an impartial process, he received a final decision from a review he took no part in, where the investigators made no effort to find out the nature of his complaint.  However, the Complainant submitted that it was comments made by the Director of Nursing, in a meeting on the 23rd August 2018, where he stated twice that the Complainants’ CV was a work of fiction, which convinced him that he had never received an impartial interview conducted by that Director of Nursing.  The Complainant submitted that this incident had since been investigated as part of a separate Dignity at Work complaint against the Director of Nursing and that his complaint was upheld, however no remedial action was taken since his complaint was upheld, notwithstanding that these comments demonstrated an unacceptable animosity towards the Complainant. 

The Complainant outlined that he suffered considerable reputational damage and financial loss as well as vital experience which would have assisted him in future interviews had he been given the opportunity to act in higher positions.  He pointed to the fact that the two other employees, who were given the acting positions as acting CNM3, had since been given permanent positions in the posts they had acted into, which he believed demonstrated how vital such experience can be when later applying for higher permanent positions. 

The Complainant submitted that his complaint regarding his two interviews demonstrates clear breaches of the organisations guidelines and asked the WRC to decide what redress should be applied because of those breaches, to compensate him as well as to prevent future breaches by the local service.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant is employed with the Respondent since the 7th March 2000 and as a CNM2 with the Mental Health Service since the 1st November 2001.  The Complainant carried out the role of local PNA representative in the Mental Health Service from the outset and at the date of the hearing was seconded on full time release as a union official since the 22nd November 2021.  The Respondent submitted that they did not receive details of each complaint on the complaint form, four in total, however, a meeting was convened with the Complainant on the 20th September 2019, and was attended by one of the Employee Relations Managers and HR Manager for the local service.  The minutes of that meeting they say provide some guidance as to the nature of the Complainants’ complaint which they identify as complaints number 1, 2 and 4.  In their submission they state that they are unaware of the nature of the complaint reference 003. 

By way of background the Respondent submitted that the Complainant lodged a complaint under the organisations Dignity at Work Policy 2009 on the 28th August 2018.  On the basis of this it was agreed by those parties at the initial hearing regarding the case, which was scheduled on the 15th October 2019 that the hearing would be postponed as some of the issues raised may be resolved during the Dignity at Work investigation.  The investigation report was completed on the 5th November 2020 following an investigation. 

CA-00028833-002

The respondent submitted that this matter related to the Complainants’ complaint in relation to regularisation of acting up arrangements.  The Respondent submitted that this complaint related to the inference by the Complainant that acting up arrangements were applied on an ad hoc basis, for example, for one day at a time, depending on what CNM3 was on duty on any given day.  The Complainant had stated that he was third on a panel but was bypassed for a candidate who was of a lower ranking/placing on the appropriate recruitment panel.  This candidate was a Community Nurse who the Complainant believed had less experience than him to undertake the role.  The Respondent submitted that it was the practice of the local service to draw from temporary acting up panels to cover managers when on various types of leave and that it was customary to call on whoever was available or rostered to work on the relevant dates to fulfil the acting up duties.  The Respondent submitted that candidates on the permanent CNM3 panels were called on to act up as the need arose pending their permanent appointment to CNM3.  These acting up arrangements covered emergencies and were never intended to be long term arrangements.  The Respondent also submitted that the local service, up until 2019 did not have a dedicated HR Manager or HR team and lacked experience in both recruitment and panel management.  The respondent submitted that a permanent HR Manager had been appointed on the 9th January 2019 and has since provided guidance and oversight on all matters relating to temporary and permanent recruitment.  The Respondent submitted that it was agreed by unions and management to engage in a conciliation process under the auspices of the WRC in order to deal with the alleged recruitment issues in the local service.  The Respondent provided documentation outlining the outcome of the conciliation process which stated that:

1.       The service “acknowledges that the spirit of the CPSA Code of Practice may not have been fully invoked at all times”.

2.       In line with National Policy, all permanent vacancies are processed by the NRS.  The local HR Department will be involved in the recruitment of all temporary appointments in line with the National Recruitment Service, the CPSA Code of Practice and HSE Circular 17/2013, 01/ 2018 and all future relevant circulars. 

CA-00028833-003

The Respondent submitted that they were unclear as to what this complaint related to. 

CA-00028833-004

The Respondent submitted that in 2018 a local confined competition was held to establish a panel for the post of interim CNM3 in the local service.  An interview panel was established, chaired by an experienced HR practitioner and interviewer from another service and the other panel members were the Acting Director of Nursing and the Acting Area Director of Nursing.  Following the interview process the Complainant requested a review of the interview process as he believed he had not been interviewed in an impartial and fair manner.  The Complainant was advised by the Area Director of Nursing in November 2018 that in line with national advice and the CPSA code of practice, that the local service had initiated a review of his complaint.  A review of the interview process was commissioned by the local area management team and this review was undertaken by a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist and the interim Hospital Administrator of the local service, neither of whom were involved in the initial interview process.  They carried out a desktop review and the findings were as follows:

·       Confirmed that six applicants proceeded to interview stage.

·       All six shortlisted applications were provided.

·       Interview notes and scoring sheets were provided with applications.

·       Checks were carried out to ensure all scores were calculated correctly and were consistent throughout all the corresponding documentation.

·       Presence of an independent Chairperson during all interviews was confirmed.

·       All six interview comment sheets were consistent and evidence that that same approach was applied for each interview.

·       Candidates scored similarly for all questions except question 1, where one candidate scored below the pass threshold for a panel.

·       Where the candidate did not score the pass rate on question 1, it was evidenced in the notes that the candidate was offered an opportunity to provide an additional/alternative example.

It was the opinion of the reviewers that the interview process was consistent for all applicants and the scoring methodology was consistent and appropriate.  The Respondent submitted that based on this review the Complainant was advised in March 2019 that the Respondent was satisfied that the interview process was undertaken in a transparent and equitable manner, in line with the CPSA Code of Practice.  The Complainant did not raise any queries or comments regarding this process. 

General:

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had four requests for which he sought adjudication as follows and summarised their response as follows:

·       CA-00028833-002

It was the Respondents’ position that this complaint was dealt with through the WRC conciliation on the 26th November 2019. 

·       CA-00028833-003

It was the Respondents’ position that they were unaware of the details of this complaint.

·       CA-00028833-004

The Respondent submitted that an internal review of the interview process was commissioned by the Area Management Team and was undertaken by a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist.  The Respondent submitted that they had dealt with this complaint in accordance with best practice, that they had initiated an internal review of the interview process and that they were satisfied that the interview was carried out in a transparent and equitable manner regarding all aspects of the interview process.

In the context of all of the above, the Respondent asked that the adjudicator not uphold any of the complaints listed. 

CA-00028833-002

I noted that the Complainant raised concerns in relation to the fact that acting up arrangements were applied on an ad hoc basis and that individuals who were placed lower on panels than him were appointed ahead of him and also that candidates with less experience than him were given opportunities to act up instead of him.  In reviewing this matter, I was particularly struck by the appointment of a candidate to an acting CNM3 post who had been placed lower on the panel than the Complainant and by the appointment of staff to an acting ADON panel who did not meet the criteria established at advertising stage and the subsequent exclusion of the Complainant from joining that panel when he brought this to attention.  I noted that all of these actions were in breach of the National Recruitment Service Guidelines and Policies, Circular 10/71, as well as the CPSA Code of Practice. 

I noted the Respondents’ position that these matters were addressed as part of a conciliation conference under the WRC on a previous occasion and I noted that at hearing the trade union representing the Complainant pointed out that that conciliation referred to a separate case and not to the case of this Complainant.  I further noted that the Respondent stated at hearing that “we have admitted our guilt before, there is no need to find us guilty again”.  I am concerned at the Respondents’ position that they consider that the resolution of bad practice going forward negates the opportunity for any employee to take an individual case about the impact of that malpractice on them as an individual and it is important to be clear that any such agreement governing future competitions does not excuse the behaviour of the Respondent in relation to competitions previously held.

In reviewing this matter, I find that the Complainant was treated disgracefully by the Respondent, that he made efforts to compete for positions, was placed on panels and then his place on those panels was ignored.  I noted with concern the explanation provided to the Complainant that positions in the area were being filled from three different panels, with the management picking and choosing which panel they would draw from on each separate occasion.  This practice departs significantly from the established practice within the Respondent employment, from their own policies and from the standards established in the CPSA Code of Practice.

I further noted that the Complainant did not apply for a position based on the eligibility criteria set by the Respondent at advertising stage and then learned that others, who also did not meet that eligibility criteria, had been included in the recruitment process and placed on a panel for acting up without ever competing through an interview process.  I noted that when he sought to be included on that panel, on the same basis as others, he was denied access to the panel. Again, the inclusion of candidates who do not meet the criteria for the position in the recruitment position and the appointment of staff to panels and ultimately to promotional positions without undergoing a selection process is another significant departure from the established practice within the Respondent employment, from their own policies and from the standards established in the CPSA Code of Practice.

I also find the failure of the Respondent to address his queries and concerns in a timely manner to be poor practice and out of line with their own policies for addressing grievances.  In all of this context I find that the Complainant was treated unfairly in relation to a series of acting up arrangements.

CA-00028833-003

At hearing, the Complainant confirmed that this was duplicate of CA-00028833-002 and therefore no complaint was put forward under this number.

CA-00028833-004

I noted that the Complainant submitted a complaint which stated that he was not afforded a fair and impartial interview as defined by the Commission on Public Service Appointments.  I noted that the interview for the temporary CNM3 post took place on the 14th June 2018 and that subsequent to that on the 21st June 2018 the Complainant received confirmation that he had been unsuccessful at interview.  I noted that the Complainant appealed the decision of the interview panel as he did not believe that he had an impartial interview and that interview guidelines had not been complied with. 

In this regard I noted that he raised concerns about the Director of Nursings’ presence on the interview board in the context that he had outstanding issues being investigated in relation to that person under the Dignity at Work Policy.  I noted that he also raised concerns about the fact that his experience in the UK some 20 years earlier was not taken into account and therefore he did not have an option to portray his experience at interview.  I noted the significant delays experienced by the Complainant in having his concerns in relation to that interview process dealt with and I noted that he was not interviewed as part of the review process ultimately established and therefore his actual concerns were not fully considered by the review team.

 I noted the Respondents’ position that the interview panel was chaired by an experienced HR practitioner and an interviewer from another service within the wider organisation and that other panel members were the Acting Director of Nursing and the Acting Area Director of Nursing.  I noted that the Respondent believed that the Complainant was interviewed in an impartial and fair manner and that he was later advised that a review of his complaint was being undertaken.  I noted that the parties who undertook the review were independent of the interview process and that the Respondent confirmed that they did indeed carry out a desktop review only.  From that review it is evident that the evidence given by the Complainant that his previous experience was not taken into account and that he was not allowed to provide an alternative is confirmed by the evidence found in relation to question 1 by that review panel.  I noted that within that review process there was indeed no option for the Complainant to be heard in relation to his grievances. 

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the Complainant was not afforded a fair and impartial interview as defined by the Commission on Public Service Appointments, nor was he provided a proper process to address his grievance.

CA-00028833-002

I have found that the Complainant was treated unfairly in relation to acting appointments and I recommend that he be paid €5,000.00 by way of compensation for the unfair treatment.

CA-00028833-003

This is a duplicate of CA-00028833-002 and therefore no recommendation is required.

CA-00028833-004

I have found that the Complainant was not afforded a fair and impartial interview as defined by the Commission on Public Service Appointments and I have also found that he was not afforded a proper review of the process or indeed a proper examination of his grievance.  In that context I recommend that the Complainant be awarded €10,000.00 by way of compensation.

Fair procedures, compliance with policies and procedures