Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Nurse

Health Service

Representatives

Mr. Niall O'Sullivan, Psychiatric Nurses' Association

Self-Represented

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 - 00000815

03/11/2022

The Worker is engaged as a nurse by the Employer organisation. On 3rd November 2022, the Worker referred a dispute within the definition of the Act to the Commission. Shortly thereafter, the Employer positively elected to engage in the dispute.

In summary, the Worker submitted that the Employer did not adhere to best practice when conducting an interview in relation to a promotional post. By response, the Employer denied this allegation, stating that the interviews were managed in accordance with all relevant codes and best practice.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 29th May 2023. Both parties issued substantial submissions in advance of the hearing, with the same being expanded upon and contested by the opposing side in the course of the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

In early 2022, the Worker applied for a position as Clinical Nurse Manager within the Respondent organisation. The Worker was subsequently called to an interview on 29th April 2022. While the Worker felt that the interview went well, on 10th May 2022 she was informed that she was not successful in relation to the same.

A number of weeks later, the Worker became aware that the Employer had interviewed some persons that did not meet the agreed criteria for interview. In addition to the same, she discovered that the composition of the interview panel did not meet relevant guidelines in this regard. Correspondence outlining these issues was sent to the Employer on 23rd May 2022. At this point the Worker was informed of her entitlements under the appeals process or, alternatively, the Employer’s internal grievance procedure. As the Worker was outside the time frame for appeal of the process, she raised a formal grievance in relation to these matters.

By outcome dated 4th July 2022, the Employer agreed that no external person was appointed to the interview panel. While they further agreed that this was in contravention of the code of practice in this regard, it was submitted that these are guidelines only. Regarding the allegation that at least one of the candidates did not meet the eligibility criteria, this allegation was not upheld on the basis that candidate’s status is confidential. The Employer further denied that the Worker was not advised of an appeals process, stating that this was contained in the application documentation. Following the lodgement of an appeal by the Worker, this outcome was upheld on appeal on 26th September 2022.  

By submission, the Worker stated that the interview process did not adhere to best practice and lacked transparency. In this regard, the Worker raised three issues. Firstly, she submitted that she was not expressly advised of her right to appeal the outcome of the process. Secondly, she submitted that the successful candidate did not have the requisite service required by the essential criteria. Finally, the Worker submitted that the panel was improperly constituted, as no external member was appointed to the same. It was submitted that this failure represented a breach of the agreed procedures in relation to the same.

By submission, the Worker’s representative submitted that the relevant procedure states that the Employer’s approaches to recruitment are underpinned by the principles of integrity, impartiality, reliability and ethical conduct. In this regard, it was submitted that the Employer did not live up to this standard by the manner in which they conducted the interview process with a result that the same lacked transparency.

By response, the Employer denied each of the allegations raised by the Worker.

Regarding the allegation that a successful candidate did not have the requisite service required by the essential criteria, this was denied on a factual basis by the Employer. In this regard, they stated that prior to being called for interview, all candidates are screened to ensure that they meet the essential criteria required for the role. In the event that these criteria are not met, the application proceeds no further. On receipt of the Worker’s grievance in this regard, the Employer reviewed this screening process to ensure that these criteria were met. Having reviewed the same at the first instance, and again on appeal, the Employer was satisfied that the successful candidate had the required service and the grievance was not upheld. In this regard, the Employer could not provide any further information in consideration of their obligation to the successful candidate’s personal data.

Regarding the second point, it was denied that the Worker was improperly informed of her right to appeal the outcome of the process. While it was accepted that the outcome letter did not expressly outline this right, information regarding the appeals process was contained in the information documentation issued to the Worker in advance of the interview.

Finally, regarding the allegation in respect of an improper constitution of the interview panel, the Employer partially denied the same. In this regard, they accepted that the panel did not include an external member. They further accepted that the relevant guidelines provide that the composition of the panel should include such a person. Nonetheless, the Employer submitted that the guidelines represent best practice and may be deviated from in certain situations. In this particular case, the role being applied for was specialist in nature and external panel members with the relevant expertise were difficult to locate in a reasonable timeframe. In addition to the foregoing, the role being applied for needed to be filled as a matter of some urgency, and the Employer did not wish to incur the inevitable delay in seeking an external member. Notwithstanding the same, it was noted that the panel was comprised of suitably qualified personnel, with the Worker raising no issue as to the conduct of her interview or the expertise of the panel as appointed.

Having regard to the foregoing, the Employer submitted that the recruitment competition was conducted in accordance with best practice and the principles of fairness to all parties. Having regard to the same, they submitted that the Worker’s application should fail.

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

Regarding the present dispute, the Worker has alleged that the Employer did not adhere to best practice in respect of an interview process. In this regard, the Worker made three separate allegations of a breach of the relevant code of conduct and best practice.

The first issue raised relates to an allegation that the successful candidate did not have the requisite service set out in the application criteria. In this regard, the Employer stated that such matters are subject to a screening process. In the event that a candidate does not meet the essential criteria, they are not called for interview. The position of the Employer was that this process was examined twice thereafter to ensure that the same was complied with, with both persons confirming that the criterion was met. In such circumstances, it is apparent that the Employer made all reasonable efforts to investigate this issue when raised by the Worker. I further accept that the Employer could not share the personal information of the successful candidate with the Worker in order to demonstrate their compliance in this regard. Nonetheless, the person that conducted the appeal of the Worker’s grievance attended the hearing and stated directly that on her examination, the service requirement was met.

Regarding the second issue, it is common case that while the outcome letter did not expressly outline the Worker’s right of appeal, the same was set out in the information pack in relation to the same. In such circumstances, the Worker had notice of her right to appeal prior to the issuing of outcome of the process. In such circumstances her rights in relation to the same were not affected in any material fashion.

Regarding the final point, it is apparent that the Employer did not appoint an external person to the interview panel. It is further apparent that this in not in compliance with the code of practice in relation to the same. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is apparent that information regarding the composition of the panel was issued to the Worker in advance of the interview, with no issue being raised in respect of the same at the relevant time. It is further noted that no issue was taken with the level of expertise or experience of the panel members at any stage of the process. Having considered Employer’s rationale for the non-selection of an external person, I find that the same is reasonable. In circumstances whereby this deviation from the code of practice did not result in any actual or alleged unfairness to the Worker, I find that the same did not have material effect on the outcome.

Having regard to the accumulation of foregoing points, I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.

Interview Process, Panel, Appeal, Criteria