LCR22883

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00036350 (CA-00047536-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 5 April 2023 in

accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 10 March 2023 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“For all the above reasons, I am unable to uphold the worker’s dispute with regards to promoting him to professor or that he should be allowed to resubmit his application for promotion under the older promotions process. I do recommend, however, that the parties continue to review on a regular basis the promotions process to ensure that suitably qualified candidates have a fair and transparent opportunity to be promoted taking into consideration the individuals’ particular subject area.’’

A Labour Court hearing took place on 14 November 2023. 

DECISION:

This is an appeal by the Worker of Recommendation ADJ-00036350 of an Adjudication Officer in respect of the Worker’s complaint that the decision not to appoint him as a Professor was unfair and that there were many failures in the process. The Adjudication officer held that she was unable to uphold his complaint.

 Summary of Worker’s submission 

 The Union representative on behalf of the Worker gave the background to the complaint setting out the Worker’s employment and relevant experience. On the 27th March 2020 the Worker lodged an application for promotion to Personal Professorship in line with the procedures that were in place at that time. On 11th March 2021 the Worker was advised via a video conference call that his application had been rejected by the Personal Professorship Promotions Board (PPPB). The Worker was surprised that he had been rejected as he had passed the stage one process which meant he had established a prima facia case for being appointed. As part of the process eight reports were sought by the PPPB, five were from referee’s nominated by the Worker, and three were from independent assessors.

The Complainant appealed the decision on the 18th March 2021. The appeal Board was convened on 29th July 2021 and 24th August 2021. The Worker submitted that it was important to note that none of the members of the appeal board had any acquaintance with the Worker’s field of expertise. On the 12th October 2021 the Worker was informed that his appeal had been rejected by the Appeal Board. The Worker sought further information in respect of this decision and was provided with the following documents, minutes of the PPPB hearing on 28th September 2020 where the decision was made that he should proceed to stage 2, and minutes of the meeting of the 25th February 2021 where the PPPB decided that they could not recommend him at that time.  He was also provided with the Promotions Board Summary Evaluation sheet dated 25th February 2021. This showed the scores awarded, but the comment section under each of the headings was left blank which made it more difficult for him to understand the marks awarded.

The Worker submitted a detailed assessment of the scores he obtained, the relevant criteria under each heading and why he believed that scoring he received was incorrect.  He also set out the names and disciplines of each member of the PPPB and the appeals Board in support of his contention that no one on either board were associated with his field of expertise. The Worker submitted that this was a critical flaw in the process.

The Worker accepts that the PPPB has a difficult role to fulfil but submits that there were many procedural flaws in the process that led to the decision not to recommend him for a Personal Professor position.

 Summary of Employer’s submission

 The Employer does not accept that it did not act fairly or in compliance with the procedure in being at the time when it came to the decision not to appoint the Worker to a Personal Professor Position. The Worker’s application was processed in line with the agreed scheme that was in place at the time. Since then, a new scheme agreed with the relevant Unions has been put in place. It is open to the Worker to make an application through the new scheme.

The Employer has provided the Worker with all the relevant correspondence in respect of the decision.  It is clear from the Worker’s submission that the Worker is looking for the Court to insert itself into the process, a role that is not open to the Court. The Worker raised the issue that none of the members of the PPPB or of the appeals Board were from his field of expertise. There was no requirement under the system that some or all of the Board members should come from the same field of expertise as the applicant.  The procedures that were in place at the time were followed. The Worker’s application was considered by an experienced promotions committee and the Appeal was considered by an Appeal Board as per the procedure. Under any promotions process there will always be applications that are unsuccessful for a variety of reasons. The Worker has failed to show where the Employer deviated from the agreed procedure and therefore his complaint must fail.

Discussion

The worker identified a number of issues such as, failure to fill in comments on the sheet, composition of BBBP board and composition of appeals board.

The Court notes that in terms of the Worker’s issues with the Board, that there was no requirement within the process that the Board consist of someone from the applicant’s field of expertise.  In circumstances where there was no requirement within the agreed scheme to have someone from the field of expertise of the applicant on the Board, the fact that there was not such a person, cannot be seen as a flaw in the process.

The Court also notes from the submissions made that the Union on behalf of the Worker, agreed to the members of the Appeal Board who reviewed the Worker’s appeal.   While the Worker might disagree with how the references were interpreted and the marks awarded, he has not identified any failure by the Employer to follow the agreed process that was in place.

In respect of the failure to fill in the comments beside the scores, while that would not be in line with best practice, it could not be considered fatal to the process as a whole.

Decision

The Court having taken into consideration the written submissions and oral submissions on the day of the hearing upholds the decision of the Adjudication Officer. The appeal fails.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
COR	______________________
05 December 2023	Deputy Chairman