Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Transport Coordinator

Service Provider

Representatives

Cormac Ó Dálaigh, Communication Workers Union

 HR Manager

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00000108

25/04/2022

The Worker's case relates to his failure to secure an interview for the position of Processing Area Manager following the advertisement of a promotion competition in June 2021.

The Worker has been employed by the Employer for 31 years. For many years he worked in a job which gave him an insight into all aspects of the Employer’s business.  In October 2020 the Worker was promoted to the position of Transport Coordinator.  The Worker achieved a Bachelor of Business in Supply Chain Management in 2017 which has benefitted him hugely in his managerial role.

Dispute

On 28 June 2021, the Worker applied for promotion to the role of Processing Area Manager.  On 16 August 2021 he received notification that he was unsuccessful in his application and had not qualified for the interview stage of the process.  The Worker was informed that he did not have the mix of experience and skills that the Employer was looking for.

The Worker wrote several times to the Employer seeking feedback on his application to no avail. Eventually, he had to seek the assistance of his Trade Union. Despite commitments that were given by the Employer, the Worker has yet to receive the feedback he requested.

The Worker is at a loss to understand why he was rejected at the first stage of the process, given his vast experience with the Employer, his qualifications and his managerial experience.  What was particularly galling to the Worker was the number of people who were successful in the promotion competition who, the Worker contends, had very little experience in the Employer organisation and had no managerial experience.

At a training course which the Worker attended shortly after the positions were filled, he was informed by his HR Manager that five of the successful candidates did not even have one day's acting experience. One of the successful candidates had been informed that he was being released by the Employer only to receive a letter two days later to let him know he had been promoted.

Claim

The Worker believes he has been unfairly treated by the Employer.  He is not sure why but is very concerned that his name has been blackened. He believes he should be offered the next suitable managerial vacancy that arises in his work area. If the Worker had been successful in his application, he would now be earning over €100 a week more than he is currently earning.

In June 2021 the Employer advertised, by way of a circular, an internal promotion competition for the position of Process Area Manager (PAM) (circa 27 vacancies).  The circular set out the application and selection procedures.  The advertisement resulted in 118 applications for the positions.

The Employer shortlisted the candidates based on the criteria set out in the circular.  The applicants were reduced to 72 from the 118 who applied for the positions. The Worker was informed by email on 16 August 2021 that he had not been shortlisted for the next stage of the selection process as there were number of other candidates who had a mixture of experience and skills that more closely matched the requirements for the role.

The Worker then sought feedback as to why he had not been shortlisted and he was advised that his request would be forwarded to the selection board who made the decision and that they would contact him directly on this matter.  Unfortunately, this did not happen.  It should be noted that feedback is not normally offered to applicants who have been unsuccessful at the shortlisting stage, it is generally only given to those who are unsuccessful at interview.

While the Worker contends that he should have been called for interview as he had managerial experience, the Employer would not agree. The Worker’s role is that of Transport Coordinator.  None of the key responsibilities associated with his role involve the management of people, unlike the PAM role.

In an email of 14 December 2022 to HR, the Worker expressed his belief that many of the successful candidates had short service and no managerial experience.  The Worker said he felt he was the victim of discrimination due to his failure to be shortlisted for interview.  HR replied on 15 December 2022 rebutting any claim of discrimination and outlined its understanding of the process that had occurred with regard to shortlisting. 

The Worker had the option of appealing the decision not to grant him an interview when he was advised he was not successful at the shortlisting stage.  He did not take the opportunity to do so.   It should be noted that other unsuccessful applicants appealed the decision not to shortlist them.  A number were successful and were then called for interview.  The Worker could also have raised the matter under the agreed grievance policy which the Employer submits is the correct process for dealing with matters such as this but the Worker did not do so.

Conclusion

The Worker is understandably disappointed at not having been called to interview but this is not a reflection on his abilities or his work ethic.  Rather, it is down to the extremely high number of candidates who applied for the role. The circular advised candidates that there would be a shortlisting process and the selection board made its decisions based on the criteria as outlined in that circular.  The Employer seeks to reassure the Worker that his name has not been blackened.  He is welcome to apply for all future managerial vacancies.

The Worker has expressed his views on those who were called for interview regarding their managerial experience and length of service.  While the Employer cannot divulge confidential information in relation to other candidates for the promotional competition, the Employer submits that the Worker would have no knowledge of either the experience or skills of other candidates which have been gained within the Employer organisation or elsewhere.  The Employer submits that all employees are entitled to apply for promotion once they have completed their probationary period.

It is accepted by the Employer that the Worker was advised that he would receive feedback as to why he was not called for shortlisting but that this did not happen.

The Employer submits that the Worker failed to appeal the decision not to shortlist him and did not raise it as a grievance under the Employer's grievance policy.   The Employer submits that this should have been done prior to raising the matter before a third party in line with agreed procedures.

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

I note that the Worker did not invoke the internal procedures that were available to him whereby he could have appealed the decision not to call him for interview nor did he raise the matter under the agreed grievance policy which was in place.  I note that the Worker attributes his failure to invoke internal procedures to the failure on the part of the Employer to provide the feedback which he requested.  I am of the view that the absence of feedback does not excuse the Worker’s failure to exhaust internal procedures.  If fact, it should have provided some impetus for him to escalate the matter internally.

In Geoghegan T/A Taps v a Worker INT 1014 the Labour Court held that “The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.” It is well established by the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court that they do not intervene in a dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 until all internal grievance procedures have been fully exhausted.  Accordingly, I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.

Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties on this issue, I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.

Failure to exhaust internal procedures