Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A worker

An employer

Representatives

In person

Séamus Given Arthur Cox

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

19/02/2021

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in 2000, this employment ended in May 2018.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 19th February 2021.

Please note that in complaints heard under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 the complainant is referred to as ‘the worker’ and the respondent is referred to as ‘the employer’.

The worker is aggrieved by the manner in which he was treated when applying for a Clerical Grade 1 position of Acting Customer Relations Supervisor" in the Customer Relations Department.

The worker worked for the employer since 2OOO and had been working in the CRD at Clerical Grade 2 Level since 2006. When the Employer advertised the vacancy in 2014 for a Clerical Grade 1 position, it made certain changes to the terms of the Staff Vacancy Notice from the one which had been used by the Employer when filling the same role in 2011 despite the fact that there had been no change in job functions.

One of the changes made to the 2014 Staff Vacancy Notice (SVN) was to label "Experience supervising a team' as "essential criteria for the role" whereas in the 2011 SVN this was merely identified as "a key competence/skill".

The worker found that the Agency used by the Employer to interview candidates for the position failed to appreciate that he was an internal candidate.

The worker discovered that he was not brought forward for an interview because he was deemed ineligible by virtue of the of the 2014 SVN noted above, despite the fact that the job functions had not changed between 2011 and 2014.

The worker also discovered, subsequent to the appointment of the successful candidate, that the successful candidate had not undertaken an on-line test which all interview candidates should have undertaken'

Subsequent to the appointment of the successful candidate, the Complainant discovered that at meeting ln July 2014, when the need for two replacements, the Complainant's immediate Line Manager, said to a work colleague 'he had someone that would slot nicely into the Grade 1 Role" The SVN for this role did not issue until the 28th August 2014.

The Line Manager confirmed to the internal investigator into the complaint that he had  (name redacted) in mind when he made the above comment.

The successful candidate for the Grade 1 Clerical Position in the CRD was (name redacted) who had only worked in the CRD Department for two weeks prior to making his application for the Grade 1 Clerical Position.

The Complainant believed that the competition for this Grade 1 clerical position was not fair or transparent.

The worker has submitted an IR Acts complaint which is identical to a previous complaint which he submitted to the WRC in January 2018 and which was withdrawn by him in August 2018. The Adjudicator will note that the worker expressly agreed to compromise this IR Acts claim in the compromise agreement reached between the parties in April 2018.

Given that the worker has not worked for the employer since May 2018 it is submitted that there is no new trade dispute or circumstances that fall within the IR Acts between the parties now that could ground a claim to the WRC. In addition, as detailed below, the compromise agreement expressly signed by the worker expressly excludes any new claims.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

In light of the facts presented by the employer’s representative I am unable to recommend in favour of the worker and my recommendation is that the claim fails.

Industrial Relations Act, 1969.