Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Librarian

A Local Authority

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Amanda Kane , Local Government Management Agency (LGMA)

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:00044865

01/07/2021

The issue in dispute concerns a recruitment competition for a post of Executive Librarian in a Local Authority.  The Worker is a Librarian and had sought and was granted a post Interview Review. As this was, in his view unsatisfactory, he had made a formal Appeal regarding the entire Interview process and the performance of the Interview Board. He was unsuccessful in both Review and Appeal.

Accordingly, he requested the WRC to investigate and issue a Recommendation on the handling of the Recruitment process and specifically the treatment of his post Interview Complaints by the Local Authority.

The Worker is a Librarian. His rate of pay is approximately €49,000 per annum for a 37-hour week.                 

The Worker was interviewed for a promotional position as Executive Librarian on the 20th April 2021.

He was placed Second on a Panel following the Interviews.

He strongly contended that

1.       The Interview process was badly structured if any structure existed at all. It was not possible to identify which of the four Competencies, which had been advised in advance, he was questioned on, and by which interview Board member. He described the process as “chaotic”

2.       The Interview Board was overly concerned with Time Management, and he felt that he had been completely rushed to his detriment. His answers were often interrupted and cut short.

3.       The Interview Board Chairman made a very disparaging remark during the Interview about the candidates experience in an “Acting up” position. This had very negative implications for the Candidate.

4.       There was a complete lack of transparency and inadequate Feedback provided post Interview and during the Review and Appeals process.

In addition, he drew attention to a complete divergence of opinion, in their recollection of events, between himself and the Chairman of the Interview Board. Furthermore, a question of a conflict of Interest was never flagged satisfactorily regarding a Member of the Interview Panel and a candidate.

The Worker stated that comments from the Author of the Appeal Process Outcome, the Director of Services, (that even if the process had been slightly flawed – seeing that it had been carried out by Humans – it was equally flawed for all candidates)– were outrageous for a Public Service Organisation charged with implementing the highest standards in recruitment and selection.

Considerable documentary material was provided covering Recruitment Guidelines for Local Authorities in general and specifically for the Local Authority in question.

In final summary the Worker contended that the interview process had been deeply flawed and was at complete variance with all accepted professional standards of Competency Interviewing.

The Local Authority, in their response to his Review request and subsequent formal Appeal, had simply “circled the wagons” and ignored his legitimate concerns.

In his Oral evidence the Worker accepted that the selection process was over. Another candidate had accepted and commenced in the Executive Librarian position. Accordingly, the process could not now be undone. He was seeking an admission from the Local Authority that the process, as far as he was concerned, had been fatally flawed.

The Local Authority completely refuted the allegations of the Worker.  A proper and transparent Interview/Selection Process had taken place in keeping with all published Local Authority Guidelines and their own local Guidelines.

The Worker had been afforded a Review of the Interview by the Senior Officer in the HR Office and a later Formal Appeal by the Director of HR. Full documentary evidence was produced in support of both processes. The Appeal outcome as presented in evidence. It was substantial document and reflected the care and professionalism with which the Appeal officer had conducted the exercise.

As regards possible conflicts of Interest/ connections between Interview Board Members and Candidates it had to be remembered that the Local Authority Service, especially the Library Service, was a very small pool of staff nationally. It was to be expected that staff members would know each other. However, this was never an issue that was allowed to cloud professional interview processes.

The brevity of Interview Notes was not an exceptional issue. Notes were a guideline to Interview Board members to assist in the ranking of candidates not a verbatim recording of all that was said during an Interview. The time schedule had been a tight one and the Chairman had quite rightly reminded all present of the need to proceed expeditiously. This could not be deemed to be to the disadvantage of the Worker as it would have applied to all other candidates.

As regards how the Competencies were scored and how they had been introduced to the Candidates during the Interview there was a major conflict of evidence/recollection between the Worker and the Chairman of the Board. Unfortunately, the Chairman was not available for the Adjudication Hearing. However, he had solidly maintained and gone on written record to detail his view that the Competencies had been properly introduced and the Interview had been structured accordingly.

In relation to alleged “Inappropriate” remarks vis a via “Acting Up situations” this was a standard Local Authority view and could not be deemed Inappropriate in any fashion.

The view of the Council could be best summarised in the view that a proper Recruitment Process had been carried out. It was acknowledged that the Interview panel were experienced officers particularly the Chairman. No interview process, if subjected to a forensic post Interview examination, will be found to be 100% perfect. However, both the Review and the Appeal had found nothing of such fundamental error or “manifest irrationality” as to substantiate the Worker’s case. 

The Recommendation from the WRC should endorse the Local Authority position.

In this Dispute considerable Oral Testimony with much supporting written material was presented by the Worker. He presented as a very diligent and most conscientious staff member of the Local Authority in question. He was one of the best prepared and skilful presenters that the Adjudication Officer had encountered for some time.

He had been “acting” in the disputed Executive Librarian position for some time. Naturally his disappointment on not being selected for a Permanent Executive role was considerable.

However, the dispute, he argued, lay not in his Personal disappointment but rather in a genuine concern that a Local Authority would run a less than perfect, in fact what he called “chaotic”, Recruitment competition.

The Local Authority argued that the Selection & Interview process had been professional and had been carried out by experienced personnel. The Appeal Process carried out by Mr. B, the Director of Services, had been comprehensive and well considered.

Neither side displayed anything but the highest personal regard for the other.

The Labour Court / Adjudication Officer precedent, in Recruitment cases such as this is well known. LCR 22341, pointed to by the Employer, sets this out clearly.

 The Third Party, be it Labour Court or Adjudication Officer, ventures into reviews of Recruitment competitions with extreme caution. The Court referred to the need for

“Clear evidence of unfairness in the process or manifest irrationality in the result.”.

A high standard of proof has traditionally been expected here.

In this case the Process was carried out according to clear and published guidelines by experienced personnel. An absolutely perfect handling of the process, in any circumstance, was not a realistic position – the Board was not the Blessed Almighty.

What was required was a Reasonable and Fair process that was not Irrational to a reasonable standard. The Worker pointed to shortfalls that were not really denied by the Employer. The issue of the alleged links between the Board member and the successful candidate was a situation that the Adjudicator did not feel happy with. Like wise, the absence, as a witness, of the Chairman of the Interview Board was also a cause of Adjudicator unease

However, on overall review and careful consideration of all the materials, both Oral and Written, the Recommendation must be that the Employer position was not “Irrational or grossly unfair” to the evidential standards required. The Employer position is upheld but subject to certain caveats.

Recruitment competition, Library Service.