Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

  Self

Corporate Employer Relations, Operations Managers

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00047391-001

26/22/2021

The Worker commenced her employment with the Employer in 2001.

On 26th November 2021, the Worker referred four separate disputes against four named Employers to the Director General of the WRC.

At the adjudication hearing, the Worker confirmed the name of the correct Employer and the complaint form in the within dispute was, with the Employer’s agreement, amended to reflect the correct name of the Employer.

The associated disputes, bearing reference numbers ADJ-00036134, ADJ-00036135, and ADJ-00036137 were withdrawn at the adjudication hearing.

The Worker submits as follows.

The Worker has worked as an Environmental Health Officer for 33 years, 21 of which have been with the Employer. She had extensive experience of all aspects of Environmental Health during those 33 years, having worked in the private, public and voluntary sector. The Worker has been employed at district, senior and principal levels during her 12 years working in the UK and as an Environmental Health Officer, both at district level and as part of a specialist national Environment Operational Unit in Ireland for the past 21 years.

For the purpose of clarification, the Worker indicated a simple departmental structure of the Environmental Health Service below

·       Assistant National Director (Environmental Health)

·       Regional Chief Environmental Health Officers

·       Principal Environmental Health Officers

·       Senior Environmental Health Officers

·       Environmental Health Officers (the Worker’s current position)

In January 2021, the Worker applied for the position of Senior Environmental Health Officer. She was interviewed via Webex on 2 March 2021.

As a result of the failure of the Employer’s internal recruitment department to apply benchmarking, the provisional panel formed as a result of the interview process had to be expired and candidates had to go through the interview process a second time. From information received following a FOI request, the Worker understands that 101 candidates were interviewed.

The Worker was interviewed, again via Webex on 27 April 2021.

The Worker was notified by letter dated 5th May 2021 that she 'had been awarded a provisional place of No. 47 on the panel' and that 'appeal outcomes or the accommodation of special circumstances of other selection process participants are not included in the formulation of order of merit at this stage. Therefore your order of merit is subject to change’.

The Worker was unhappy with her provisional panel position and with the manner in which the recruitment process had been conducted. She followed the appeals process, lodging both an informal and a formal appeal, neither of which were upheld. Despite the results letter clearly stating that the Worker’s placing was provisional and could change depending on the outcome of appeals, this was not the case. Expressions of Interest (EOIs) continued to be issued throughout the appeal period. The Worker is not aware of anyone whose placing on the panel has been changed as a result of an appeal in respect of this recruitment campaign.

Background and previous interview experience

In 2015, the Worker applied for the position of Senior Environmental Health Officer. 147 candidates participated in this recruitment campaign, 84 of which were placed on the panel. The Worker was placed 2nd on the panel following this recruitment process but was unable to take up a position as no vacancies arose in the location where she lives for the duration of this panel.

In December 2020 (seven weeks before the interview which is the subject of this dispute) the Worker, with 49 other colleagues, participated in a recruitment campaign for the role of Principal Environmental Health Officer. This role is two levels above the position of basic grade Environmental Health Officer which she currently holds. Of the 50 candidates interviewed, 31 were placed on the panel. The Worker was placed 16th on this panel.

The Worker decided to apply for the position of Senior Environmental Health Officer in order to provide her with an opportunity to 'act up' in the role of Principal and therefore to give her the experience which she felt was necessary prior to taking up a Principal Environmental Health Officer role, should a vacancy arise. She, therefore, applied and was interviewed for the post of Senior Environmental Health Officer on 27th April 2021.

Basis of appeal — Request for typed copy of interview notes and request for feedback on performance at interview

The dispute submitted to the WRC stated that the Worker is 'seeking a typed copy of my interview notes (the original are illegible) and face to face feedback with the interview board in order to find out why my position on the panel didn't match my performance on the day or my expectations'.

The Worker submitted an informal appeal to the Employer recruitment department on 14th May 2021. Despite numerous emails requesting an update on the progress of her appeal, she did not receive a response until 15th July 2021. The response stated that the delay was due to the cyber-attack which impacted the Employer at the time, however, the email address which the Worker used to correspond with the Employer’s recruitment department was the same email address which they were using at the time to issue Expressions of Interest in respect of vacant Senior Environmental Health Officer positions. At least four EOIs were sent out during the time the Worker was awaiting a response from the Employer (14th May -17th July 2021).

The Employer took almost eight weeks to respond to the Worker’s Informal Appeal. When it sent her a response on 17th July 2021, the Worker was given two days to submit a Formal Appeal, which she did. As with the informal appeal, the Worker did not receive a response or acknowledgement from the Employer within the timeframe required by the CPSAs Code of Practice.

Request for typed copy of interview notes

The Worker’s interview on 27th April 2021 was held remotely via Webex. As a result of the manner in which the original interview was conducted (absence of benchmarking meant that the interviews had to be 'expired') the Worker had concerns regarding the recruitment campaign for the post of Senior Environmental Health Officer. Consequently, she took her own notes immediately following her interview.

In order to attempt to ascertain why her panel placing was so low, the Worker requested a copy of the notes taken during her interview. This request was first made on 14th May 2021 which she followed up with Freedom of Information requests and appeals in accordance with the FOI procedure. In July 2021, the Worker received a copy of the handwritten notes taken during the interview, which were illegible. The Worker requested a typed version of the notes, and she was variously informed by the Employer that

·       'unfortunately at present we do not have the resources to fulfil individual's requests for typed copies of their interview notes'

·       'the [Employer’s recruitment department] is overstretched and it is simply not feasible that we would undertake to provide a transcription service for these aide memoires, either in hard copy or verbally by phone'

·       ‘the record concerned does not exist'

·       'the Campaigns Manager feels that the interview notes are legible and therefore do not require to be transcripted'

The Worker followed the prescribed appeals process and following a decision of the Office of the Information Commissioner that the notes were illegible, she received a typed version of the notes on 2nd March 2022, ten months after first requesting them.

Having studied the typed notes the Worker noticed that not all of the answers she provided during her interview had been recorded by the interview board.

For example, in the area of 'Knowledge/Experience relevant to the Role' the Worker was asked questions in eight areas

·       Water and boil water notices

·       International Health Regulations

·       Alcohol legislation and enforcement

·       Service priorities for alcohol enforcement

·       Cosmetic legislation and enforcement

·       Sunbeds legislation and enforcement

·       Tobacco Control

·       Issues around consistency in Food Control

The typed notes which the Worker received show that notes were only taken on her answers in four of the above eight areas. The areas of cosmetic legislation and enforcement, sunbed legislation and enforcement, tobacco control and issues around consistency in food control had not been recorded.

The Worker understands from colleagues and from the response which she received to her formal appeal that members of the interview panel completed the Employer’s online 'Recruitment Interview Skills' video training course prior to conducting the interviews. The Worker has requested confirmation of this in a FOI request and have been informed that this information is not available in the manner in which she has requested it and that she will be required to pay a fee of €280 to receive it and other information relating to the number of candidates who submitted appeals following this recruitment process.

To understand the scope of the training, the Worker has recently undertaken the 'Recruitment Interview Skills' course herself. Under the heading 'Tips for Taking Good Notes' in the video, trainees are instructed to 'record what everyone says verbatim as much as possible' and 'record all questions and answers'.

In response to both requests, a request for an Informal Review and a request for a Formal Review the Worker was informed that the notes from the interview are not a verbatim account of what was said but are to act as a memory aid. This is at variance to guidance provided during the training as outlined above. Not all of the interview questions and answers have been recorded in the Worker’s case.

The Worker has concluded that as the interview panel failed to record the answers she gave at interview, no marks were awarded for these answers. Therefore, the total score she was awarded does not reflect her performance at the interview and that the panel placing which she was awarded was inaccurate.

Request for feedback on performance at interview

The Worker initially requested feedback in her request for an Informal Review on 14th May 2021 and on numerous occasions since then. In response to her request, the Employer stated that they did not provide career development feedback.

As outlined, in the Worker’s almost 34-year career she has experience in every aspect of the

Environmental Health profession. She does not require career development feedback. The Employer has indicated that the interview campaign for the post of Senior Environmental Health Officer was robust and conducted in accordance with the CPSA Code of Practice.

The Worker completed an application form which was the same for the post of Senior Environmental Health Officer in 2015, Principal Environmental Health Officer in 2020 and Senior Environmental Health Officer in 2021 with only minor amendments to reflect additional experience gained in the intervening period. The Worker used the same competencies as examples and she completed the interview via Webex as she did for the Principal Environmental Health Officer interview in December 2020 so she had experience of both online and in person interviews.

Chapter 2.6.10 of the CPSA Code of Practice states that. 'clear, specific and meaningful feedback that explains the basis for the decision reached' should be provided to candidates“. The Employer has stated that feedback 'is provided in the form of the structured marking sheet which breaks down the scores awarded by each competency'.

The Worker exhibited a copy of the marking sheet relevant to her interview. She felt that the mark she received at interview for each competency does not constitute 'clear, specific and meaningful feedback' nor does '[the Worker] demonstrated sufficient evidence of her ability to plan and manage resources in the e.g. provided of her current role' For example, the Worker received a mark of 42 for the competency 'Planning and Managing Resources' (a mark of less than 40 would result in not being placed on the panel) in the rescheduled Senior Environmental Health Officer interview on 27th April 2021 — a drop of 43 points from the mark she received for the same competency in the Principal Environmental Health Officer interview seven weeks previously in December 2020 and a drop of 54 points for the same competency in her previous Senior Environmental Health Officer interview in 2015.

The Worker submits that until she understands how this happened - by way of meaningful feedback - she cannot progress further with her career. She cannot partake in another interview until she understands where she went wrong with the last interview she completed. The Worker has never sought feedback as to how she might improve her performance for future recruitment events — she is seeking feedback on her performance at the interview held on 27th April 2021.

The Worker is seeking face to face feedback, preferably from one or more of those on the interview board, to inform her what she could have said, or how she could have phrased her responses in order to achieve, at a minimum, the marks she achieved at previous interviews.

The Employer informed the Worker that 'the level of evidence as provided by the candidate at interview is compared against a list of behavioural indicators. This is the basis used by all interview boards for all interviews run by the [Employer’s recruitment department] to determine the scores awarded. The interview board are charged with assessing the skills and knowledge of the candidates from the information presented during the interview and measuring the evidence provided against the behavioural indicators for the grade of staff they are interviewing for'.

The Worker understands that there was some difficulty amongst the interview boards in ascertaining how candidates who did not quote 'key words' indicated in the list of behavioural indicators should be marked. The Worker believes that the interview boards did not identify and take transferrable skills into consideration, which may account for the discrepancy between her marks over the different interviews. At 55 at the time of the interviews the Worker was probably the oldest candidate to participate in the recruitment campaign. The current panel will most likely expire in May 2024, and it is highly unlikely that there will be sufficient vacancies at Senior Environmental Health Officer level to enable the Worker to be appointed based on her current placing of 47th on the panel.        Until the Worker receives adequate and accurate feedback, she will not be in a position to apply for the next recruitment campaign potentially in the summer of 2024. She feels that her career has been stalled by the decision of the Employer not to provide her with the feedback she has requested, resulting in financial implications in respect of her income and pension entitlements.

The Employer submits as follows.

Background

In January 2021, the Worker applied for the promotional position of Senior Environmental Officer through a Recruitment Campaign managed by the Employer’s recruitment department.  The Worker was successful at interview and was awarded position 45 on the panel with an overall interview score of 429.

The Worker raised an informal appeal concerning her results on the basis of 3 previous campaigns (2015-2021) that she had interviewed for. The Worker queried the variances in the interview scores. A copy of the interview notes was also requested.

Post the panel creation, as a result of several informal appeals it was discovered that the benchmarking standards for this campaign had not been applied consistently and a decision was taken by the Employer’s recruitment department (in consultation with the Governing Body, The Commission for Public Service Recruitment - CPSA) to rerun the campaign. On 6th April 2021, the applicants from campaign were informed by mail that the campaign was to be rerun.

The Worker received a response to her informal appeal on 19th April 2021 confirming that her appeal was upheld in light of the “benchmarking issue” and was provided with a copy of her interview notes.

Post the rerun of the interviews the Worker was successful and was awarded position 47 on the panel with an overall interview score of 389. Worker raised informal appeal which was received 24th May 2021. This appeal was received outside of the appeal timelines however the Employer agreed to progress the appeal as this period coincided with the Employer’s cyber attach and emails could not be reliably receipted. Once again, the basis of the appeal was the Worker was querying the variances in the interview scores received compared to previous campaigns that the Worker had applied for.

The Worker requested:

· A typed copy of notes from both interview dates · Meaningful feedback as per the CPSA · A response to a list of 60 questions

The Worker’s appeal was responded to and not upheld. The Worker received a comprehensive response to the 60 questions submitted.

On 19th July 2021, the Worker submitted a formal appeal to the Formal Appeals Officer. This contained an additional 60 questions. The Formal Appeals Officer summarised the basis of the appeal into four key points

1. Interviewers did not question the full extent of experience 2. Selection of the interview board members was not conducted fairly 3. Concerns on training, qualifications, and competence of interviewers 4. Scores awarded were unfairly low and not indicative of experience

On 31st August 2021, the Worker received a response to the formal appeal. The appeal was not upheld.

On 11th October 2021, the Worker requested a legible (typed) copy of interview notes.

On 18th October 2021, the Worker received a response from the General Manager (GM) of the Employer’s recruitment services with a typed copy of notes and a scoring sheet with the GM noting that she considered the matter to be concluded.

The Worker has continued to follow up with a number of FOI requests for various points of information relating to the campaigns from 2015-2021. The Employer’s FOI team are continuing to respond to same.

Dispute

The Worker before the WRC sought an independent external review of her concerns in regard to:

· The Employer’s refusal to provide a typed copy of interview notes. · Face to face feedback with the interview board to understand why the position on panel didn’t match her view of her performance on the day. · The Employer not providing meaningful feedback following the Senior Environmental Health Officer interview.

Employer Response to the Dispute

Interview outcome

With regard to interview outcome the interview board can only make assessments based on the competency demonstrated by the candidate on the day. While the Worker may have used the same examples to demonstrate the competencies across all three SEHO interviews, it is impossible to say if the level of relative competency demonstrated by the Worker on the day was of the same standard.

In order to ensure consistency and as part of quality assurance in the marking process where there are a number of interview boards, benchmarking takes place within the competition, this is specific to the campaign and only relevant to that singular programme of recruitment. The purpose of benchmarking is to ensure that Board Members agreed that equal marks were given for the same calibre of answer as measured against the behavioural indicators or ideal answer (Professional Knowledge). The interview board assesses the skills and knowledge of the candidates from the information presented during the interview and measures each competency demonstrated by each individual candidate against the behavioural indicators for the grade of staff for which they are interviewing. This is a competitive process and candidates who present the highest level of knowledge and experience will receive the highest scoring.

The onus falls on the candidate to not only provide details pertaining to their current role or past experiences but to tailor this information to show that their experience and skill set is relevant and meets the requirements of the role as detailed in the job specification.

It is equally impossible to add in a comparison interview scores for roles that are different grades as there is variation in the competencies and requirements of the job assessed.

Contrary to the expectation of the Worker, the Employer is not aware of another employer that benchmarks over time and different recruitment competitions. There is no value to the process in doing so.

Interview notes

Interview board members take notes during each interview. The notes created during interviews are intended as an aide memoir only for the interview board, they are not a verbatim record of the interview itself. These are provided to candidates on request and are provided in their original handwritten form.

Typed copies are not created and therefore cannot be provided. It is important to remember the sole purpose of any notes produced, therefore a verbatim or complete record of the interview overall should therefore not be expected.

From November 2021, the additional campaign information document has been updated to make it clearer to candidates the purpose of interview notes and the format in which they will be supplied if requested.

Interview notes have been provided to the Worker both in the original handwritten format and in a typed format.

Interview feedback

The agreed acceptable format of feedback available to candidates post interview is by way of providing them with a scoring sheet detailing individual scores and a comment regarding the score achieved. This format is accepted by the governing body for public service recruitment - the CPSA as appropriate. During the pandemic, this activity was suspended and has now been reinstated.

The Employer conducts thousands of interviews on an annual basis, it is not practical to offer individual face to face feedback with board members following interviews as sought by the Worker. This would simply place unsustainable obligations on the Employer and the Employer requests that this is noted and accepted by the WRC. No employer in the Irish economy that conducts high volume recruitment does so.

The Worker has received a copy of the structured marking sheet which breaks down the scores awarded by each competency. An explanation of the structured marking process was also provided.

Conclusion

The Employer has gone over and above in terms of expectations to respond to this Worker’s appeal (for example, provisions of typed notes, providing 60 individual answers to questions, exceptional number of questions and answers required) in responding to queries from the Worker and have supplied all the requested information. The Employer understands that the Worker is disappointed with her panel position. The Employer’s conclusion is that it acted fairly and in line with governance and best practice throughout.

The Worker had three points of complaint to WRC of which two have been satisfied.

1. request for typed interview notes, 2. feedback from the interview panel was sought and provided via the interview results sheet. The third point regarding “face to face” feedback from the interview panel has not been and it is submitted it cannot be provided. As a general rule it is a disproportionate expectation of a high-volume recruitment employer.

The complaint before the Adjudicator was properly examined in the statutory appeals processes (2 stages) provided for public service recruitment campaigns. (Appeals Process CPSA). The complaint was not upheld in that process. The complaint raises unrealistic expectations of an employer that go beyond the purpose of a particular employment recruitment campaign.

I have carefully considered the submissions of the parties.

It is not my role in making this recommendation to decide who was the most meritorious candidate in a promotional competition.

In LCR 21333 A University v A Worker the Labour Court stated:

“This Court has consistently adopted the position that it does not substitute its decision for that of an employer’s recruitment or promotional panel regarding the merits of a candidate for employment or promotion. The Court can only look behind a decision in relation to appointments where there is clear evidence of unfairness in the selection process or manifest irrationality in the result. “

Consequently, it is not within the remit of an Adjudication Officer to substitute their view on the merits of the applicants or make a comparative analysis of their applications. The only issue that is within the competence of an Adjudication Officer is to examine whether some clear procedural unfairness or manifest irrationality in the result may have been present in the process that could have resulted in an injustice to the Worker.

I cannot, on the basis of the oral and written submissions made at the hearing, find a basis for concluding that the procedures employed by the interview board were unfair to the Worker or was structured in such a way as to disadvantage her vis-a-vis other candidates.

I note that the Worker relies heavily on the comparison of the scores from the SEHO that is the subject of the within dispute and those of three other competitions she had competed in. I find that this comparison is of little benefit. The candidates’ performance on the day is assessed and, while the Worker believes she did as well at the latest interview as at the previous ones, it is something that is impossible to ascertain.

However, I find that, while quite clearly it would be infeasible to take a full transcript of the interview, it is necessary for the interview board to record the questions asked and capture the main points or key words given and any supporting information. It is essential that robust records be kept of the interview and the decision-making process in order to demonstrate that the process was carried out in a fair, transparent and equitable manner.

My view on the matter is reinforced by the Employer’s policy that the post interview feedback be by way of providing a candidate with a scoring sheet detailing individual scores and a comment regarding the score achieved.

I note that the Commission for Public Service Appointments Code of Practice acknowledges that “Candidates may seek further explanation (feedback) for a decision made regarding their application” and the Commission expects that:

·       “Effective systems are in place to manage the feedback function

·       Clear, specific and meaningful feedback that explains the basis for the decision reached is provided when requested by candidate”

In light of the limited comment contained in the scoring sheet and limited, if not incomplete notes that the Employer considers to be “an aide memoir only for the interview board”, it might be difficult for the Worker to understand what she did well and what areas she could improve on. It is, therefore, my view that, in the circumstances the Worker is entitled to a meaningful, constructive and specific feedback to ensure compliance with the above policy and the stated aim which is to ensure the candidate can understand the basis for the decision.

Having carefully considered the submission of the parties in this dispute, I recommend that meaningful feedback is offered to the Worker by way of a remote or in person meeting within three weeks from the date of this recommendation. For the avoidance of doubt, I make this recommendation specifically in relation to the exceptional circumstances of this dispute and it should not be taken to have a wider implication.

Interview process- feedback- notes