Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Development Officer

Sporting  body.

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-00046426

28/09/2021

The worker has presented a dispute that the employer’s failure to promote him to the position of Regional Manager in November 2020 was unfair and unreasonable.

He commenced employment as a Development Officer with the employer in 2007 and assumed the role of Regional Team Leader in 2016.

He earns €3600, gross per month.

He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 28/9/2021.

The worker commenced employment as a development officer in 2006, progressed to a Team Leader’s position in 2016, and to a Regional Team Leader’s position in 2019. His work entailed training coaches an d developing the sport. He also functioned a s team coach.

The employer engaged in a period of restructuring in 2019-2020 resulting in the creation of new roles, one of which was identified as a Regional Manager’s role. This is the post for which the worker applied. He was interviewed for the role in November 2020. He was unsuccessful. He found it particularly humiliating that employees who used to report to him were promoted over him and that he was the only Team Leader not to have been promoted to the position of Regional Manager. Accordingly, he questions the criteria and the process used for selection. For example, he questions why performance reviews, references were not sought from candidates applying for the position.

Throughout his career he gained experience in and exercised, competently, the functions incorporated into the position of Regional Manager. He had understood that the duties of his post as a Team Leader would migrate into the new role of Regional Manager.

He accepts that he did not do a great interview but believes that an assessment based on a 40-minute interview as opposed to 14 years’ service is very unfair.

He is looking for a remedy that acknowledges his distress and restores his standing in the organisation.

The employer states that the interview for the position of Regional Leader was fair.

The worker was shortlisted for the position. On the basis of his interview, he came twelfth out of sixteen interviewed candidates. He acknowledged himself that he did not do a great interview. The interview notes and scoring sheets reveal the complainant’s poor performance or at least a performance that saw him ranked in twelfth position.

The Regional Manager’s job was more distant from his role as Team Leader than he alleges. He would be managing a bigger team of nine. It was a more strategic role. He would have to performance manage the team. Ultimately, he did not manage to convince the selection panel that now was the right time for such a promotion.

He activated the grievance procedure against the decision not to promote him.  His grievance was not upheld. He appealed that decision, but the employer believed that they had behaved professionally and fairly in their selection.

They ask that I find in their favour.

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

The worker maintains that he was a rightful appointee to the position of Regional Manager in November 2020.

I acknowledge the worker’s disappointment that his undisputed, highly commendable service to the employer body did not take precedence over what the employer felt to be an indifferent interview for the post of Regional Manager on date.

The employer was careless in how they managed his need for feedback and failed to honour their guarantees to come back to him on which if any shortcomings had led to their failure to promote him.

The employer mentioned the likelihood of other promotional opportunities. With this in mind, I recommend that the employer set up a training needs analysis with the worker to identify which areas/competencies need upskilling for purposes of career progression and him moving into a more senior position within the organisation. Some areas mentioned included upskilling in IT and Presentation skills. I recommend training in these areas.

In recognition of the employer’s disrespectful response to his legitimate enquiries as to how he had come short at interview, I recommend that the employer pay a sum of €750 to the worker.

Failure to secure promotion.