Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Local Authority

Representatives

N/A

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 – 00001099

09/02/2023

The Worker stated that although he had been acting up in the Area Supervisor role for nearly four years, he was not made permanent in the role following an interview process. He is seeking a recommendation that he be made permanent in the role.

The Worker stated that following the retirement of his supervisor in 2019, his Team Leader asked him to assume the role of Supervisor on a full-time basis. The Worker stated that at the time he told his Team Leader that he didn't want to do the role as he was happy doing the job he was doing. After two days of talks with his Team Leader however, the Worker stated that he was persuaded to take the position and was given a smaller van to drive, as well as a mobile phone, email address, a pay increase and additional annual leave.

He stated that despite having continued to do the job since 2019, he was told in December 2022 that the Local Authority were holding interviews for Team Leader and Supervisor positions and was told that there were three Supervisor roles available. He stated that he couldn't believe that he had to go for an interview for the job he had been doing for the last four years.

He subsequently applied for both the Team Leader and Supervisor positions, stated that he received very good feedback and was told that the interview panel would take into consideration the years he had been doing the job. After doing the interviews, two of his colleagues were given the Supervisor role on a permanent basis and the Worker was told that he was placed sixth on the panel.

The Worker stated that he was very disappointed because in the past it was the norm for those acting in the jobs to get the positions on a permanent basis. He further stated that he was very upset because one of the people who was given a permanent role as a Supervisor following the interview process had never worked as a Supervisor and had no experience in the role. He also stated that one person on the interview panel knew a lot of the people applying for the job as he was their former boss which the Worker found to be disgraceful.

In summary, he asserted that the Employer went back on their word to him because he believed that he had been promised the position by his manager four years previously and was talked into taking the role even though he didn’t want to. He also stated that he felt aggrieved that his terms and conditions reverted to what they previously were and was led to believe four years earlier that his wages would not decrease in the future. He further stated that the feedback he received from his Team Leader over the four years he was acting in the role was excellent.

The Workers was assigned to an acting Area Supervisor position on the 21 August 2020, having been backdated to commence from 18 November 2019.  He was informed of this by letter dated 11 September 2020 and was told in this letter that he would “revert to your former substantive grade when the period of your acting ceases.  Any entitlements acquired during this period attached to the “acting up” position will cease on termination of acting.  It should be noted that Acting does not confer automatic entitlement to the post”.

On 27 September 2022, the Employer advertised the position of Area Supervisor on a permanent basis.  This was an internal competition open to staff of the Employer.  The Worker applied for this position and attended for interview on the 10 January 2023.  Following this competitive process, the Worker was successful and placed sixth on the panel.  This panel is in place until 15 January 2024. Currently, three members of the panel have been appointed to the three vacant permanent posts identified. 

On 8 February 2023, the Acting Administrative Officer met with the Worker at his request.  In this meeting, she explained to the Worker that he was reverting to his substantive grade.  She explained the policy around acting up and that an appointment to a permanent position had to be done by way of competition.

A second meeting was arranged with the Administrative Officer and the Worker on 28 March 2023.  At this meeting, the Worker was informed that he would be reverting to his substantive grade of a General Operative from 11 April 2023.

The Employer stated that supervisory positions are always filled by way of competition and that neither the Human Resources nor any other department can unilaterally decide to fill a position like that of Area Supervisor without competition.  Likewise, neither Human Resources nor an individual Department can unilaterally decide to offer a position such as Area Supervisor for an indefinite period.  It was asserted that a decision like this would be against the best interests of staff eligible to compete for a position and would create a dangerous precedent if allowed to happen.

It was further asserted that a huge majority of promotional competitions carried out by the Employer contain applicants that are acting into various positions.  Of these candidates, some are successful and placed on a panel and others are unsuccessful and return to their substantive grade once the panel is formed and positions are filled.

In this case, the Worker competed for the position, was successful and placed on the panel.  However, as there is no vacant position for the Worker to be appointed to, he was reverted to his substantive grade, until such a time a position arises.  This panel was formulated on 16 January 2023 and will run for one year.  However, there is an option for local management to recommend to Human Resources an extension for A further year.

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

The essence of the Worker’s case in relation to this dispute is that because he acted up in the Area Supervisor role since 2019, he should have been offered the role on a permanent basis.

I note in the first instance that the Worker should recognise that the union of which he is a member agreed with the Employer that a recruitment process is the most appropriate way by which permanent positions are filled in the Authority.

I further note that the Worker himself participated in the recruitment process for the permanent Area Supervisor position, that he did not object to the composition of the interview panel in advance and that it was only when he did not achieve a high enough place on the selection panel that he raised this dispute.

I also note that the Worker was not unsuccessful in the recruitment process as he was placed on the panel and that it is not in dispute that the panel will remain live until January 2024. The Employer also highlighted the possibility that the life of the panel may be extended by a further year until January 2025.

In addition, while I accept that the Worker was told to apply for the permanent role and understand his belief that he would be successful in attaining the position, given that he had been acting up in the role for almost 4 years, there was no guarantee he would secure the permanent role in the process.

Considering all of the foregoing, I find that the Worker must accept the outcome of the interview process.