ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00042917

Parties:

Complaint/Dispute:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  27/04/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the IndustrialRelations Act 1969following the referral of the complaint/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint/dispute.

Background:

The dispute concerns an interview for Grade V in the employment.  The Worker contends that information received to compile a review report following the interview with her was false.

Summary of Worker’s Case:

The Worker stated that she attended an interview by virtual platform over two days.  She was very well prepared.  She had talked to colleagues beforehand, and she had read all relevant documents on topics which were covered at the interview, e.g. Freedom of Information issues were topical at the time.   She was not successful in her application.  She received feedback from the Chair of the interview panel Mr O.  He told her she was upset.  But that is not the correct term – she was cross.  She asked him to explain how certain percentages were arrived at.

She sought a review of the decision which was undertaken by Mr M. 

She contends that notes taken by the Interviewers were not reflective of answers given by her.   There was no mention of her 31 years experience, her knowledge of Regulatory Agencies.   She knew they were competency based interviews, with emphasis on “I” not “We”.   She did not refer this dispute to WRC because she felt ‘hard done by’, but she said that all her hard work was not recognised.  She is not saying that the interview process was not followed, but she questions the outcome.  She outlined a number of other complaints she had, including that she was the only one in her area not promoted, that she went for other posts which she believed she should have been offered.  At one stage, she was told she did not ‘look the part’ for a particular job in Community work.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Worker was interviewed in May 2022.  The results were based on the interview marking sheets which were compiled by the interview panel.  In accordance with policy and procedure, the Chair of the interview panel gave feedback to the Worker.  On appeal by the Worker, the matter was reviewed by Mr M as a formal review.  The outcome was provided to the Worker on 31 August 2022. 

Mr M found “Having reviewed the campaign file which contains the job specification, application form, interview notes and marking sheet, and having followed on this assessment with discussions with members of the interview board, I can confirm that I am satisfied that the recruitment process was adhered to and the marking scheme within the selection process was fairly and consistently applied throughout this campaign.”    In addition Mr M advised the Worker that if she wished, she should seek advice on the competency based interview process and offered assistance in this regard.

Following the issue of his review, the Worker advised him that she believed the information provided to him in the review was false.  Mr M replied that he believed all the information given to him to have been of good standing.

As a Public Body, the Employer is bound by the recruitment process as set out by the Commission of Public Service Appointments.  It is submitted that the interview and marking process was consistently applied throughout the Region.

In the hearing, Mr M stated that interview panels are trained.  They capture key words spoken by interviewees and review their notes immediately after the interview.  The scores are compiled when the candidate leaves the room.  So the notes and marking are done immediately.  The notes kept by the interviewers are key and capture the responses the candidate gives to questions.  

Findings and Conclusions:

I note from the Employer’s submission that the formal process was followed and the Worker herself does not take issue with this.  As she said herself, it was the outcome she questioned and she alleged that the information provided for the review of the outcome was false. The oral submission from the Reviewer is that the interview panel take contemporaneous notes and record their marking on that basis. The Worker in this case is not persuaded that the interview notes are correct.  I note that she has had 31 years service and it is to be hoped that she can secure another promotion in the future.   In this case, her recollection of her interview does not tally with the notes given to the Reviewer and she does not accept the outcome of the review.                             I find that the allegation that the information given to the Reviewer was false is not sustainable.  I am not in a position to make a recommendation which would overturn the result of her interview as this would be undue interference in the process.  Nor am I in a position from reviewing the matter to uphold her allegation that the information given to the Reviewer was false.  I do not find in the Worker’s favour.  

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

Based on the findings and conclusions above, I do not find in the Worker’s favour.

Dated:   6th July 2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: