Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Administrative worker

Employment Agency.

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Mr James Egan, B.L, instructed by Mulhall and Co Solicitors.

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

Complaint Ref: CA-00046191

14/09/2021

The complainant’s dispute is that the employment agency failed to champion her appointment to a permanent position in the workplace to which they had assigned her.

The respondent employment agency assigned her to an administrative position with the hirer on 29/03/2021.

Her employment ended on 16/07/2021.

She worked 40 hours a week and received a gross, weekly wage of €400.

She submitted her dispute to the WRC on 14 September 2021.

The worker was employed on a four-month contract and was assigned to work as a Clerical Officer with a professional registration authority, the hirer. Permanent members of the team on which she worked were employed as Executive Officers on higher salaries.

On the day before her contract ended, the hirer advertised a permanent position on her team at a higher level, that of Executive officer. She submitted her CV to the employment agency for referral to the hirer with whom she had worked well for the previous four months. She did not get an interview. She was well qualified for the job. She has a science degree.

She tried to get feedback from the respondent as to why she failed to secure an interview, but she got no response from them.

 While the respondent employment agency should have championed her candidacy and did not, her main complaint was against the hirer.

She is seeking an apology, an explanation and feedback.

The employer’s representative advised that the worker had been absolutely capable in her role over the course of her employment.

The agency referred her CV, application form, another 5 applications and CVs for the position of Higher Executive Officer to the hirer. The role for which she applied required three years’ experience which she did not have.

The complaint is listed against the respondent employment agency but in fact they have no authority in any decision-making process once a CV is submitted to a client.

The hirer advised the respondent after the closing date had passed that the worker was not shortlisted for interview. Their reasoning was that the candidates they had shortlisted including internal candidates seeking a promotion were more suited to the role/had more relevant experience. The employer provided this information to the worker, and it is the only level of feedback received from the hirer.

If a candidate is unsuccessful after attending an interview, they generally provide more in-depth feedback.

The respondent understands that she was disappointed not to have been selected and invited to attend interview. Selection always comes down to the standard of other applicants on a compare and contrast basis of the skill set out on their CV/ Cover Letter. But that decision had nothing to do with the respondent.

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

The worker’ main concern was with the hirer, though she was dissatisfied with the absence of feedback from the respondent.

I recommend that the respondent tries to secure an agreement with the hirer that henceforth the same feedback will be supplied to agency employees, not invited to interview, as that supplied to internal candidates for promotional posts.          

Agency worker.