Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Lecturer

A University

Representatives

 SIPTU

IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00047536-001

07/12/2021

The worker submits that the decision not to promote him to Professor was unfair in the circumstances and that there were many failures in the process.

The worker commenced employment in 2004 and was promoted to senior lecturer in 2006.  He had previously been a senior lecturer in a different university.  On 27 March 2020 the worker applied for promotion to Personal Professor.  The worker was advised on 11 March 2021 that his application had been rejected by the promotions board overseeing such promotions.  As part of the process 8 reports had been sought: 5 from the worker’s chosen nominees and 3 independent assessors sought by the employer.  On 18th March 2021 the worker appealed the decision.  The appeal board convened on 29th July and 24 August 2021 and none of those on the appeals board had any acquaintance with the worker’s field of expertise.  On 12th October 2021 the worker was advised that his appeal was rejected.  The worker received the promotion boards evaluation sheet which stated the worker was not recommended for promotion.

The worker submitted that a review of the related documentation, including the assessors report, minutes of the promotion Board meeting and the scoring form, all point to procedural problems, as well as being incomplete and an inaccurate appraisal of the worker.

It was submitted that even though a prima facie case for promotion was established, the expert assessments of the worker’s application is at odds with the boards assessment who appear to point to significant gaps in the worker’s contribution, PhD supervision, research funding and leadership duties.  It was outlined that the promotions board did not provide an accurate appraisal and gave an incomplete evaluation of the independent assessment.  The worker submitted that the assessors expressed surprise that the worker was not already at professor level but yet the board appeared to discard such praise and acknowledgement of the worker’s expertise.  Furthermore, it was submitted that the disciplines of the academic board were not appropriate to the worker’s expertise.  The scoring system failed to accurately reflect the information within the assessment of the worker.  The employer undervalued the workers achievement of a qualification higher than a PhD.  The qualification achieved by the worker is only awarded to those who over a substantial period have published ground-breaking and influential work.  The board also assessed against 6 and not the required 7 areas of assessment and penalised the worker for not securing research funding despite that this was not an essential prerequisite for promotion.

The worker advised that he had been assessed under the older system of promotion to professor and that he did not wish to submit an application under the new system of promotion to professor as he did not believe he would reach the criteria of a prima facie case owing to the changes that had been made with the new promotions process.  It was confirmed that the new criteria had been agreed between the unions and the employer.  The worker also responded to additional documentation which the employer sent in after the hearing and submitted their unhappiness with same.

It was submitted that the worker applied for promotion to Personal Professor and following consideration at the first stage was moved to Stage 2 of the process.   This process required external reports to be sought and 3 reports were received and considered by the promotions committee on 25th February 2021.  The final decision was that the worker was not recommended for promotion to professor.  This was communicated on 11th March 2021.  This was appealed by the worker on 18th March 2021 and the appeals board considered the appeal and this appeals board has been agreed in advance by the unions and the employer.  A report was issued on August 24th, 2021, and the decision was not overturned. 

The promotions process under which the worker applied had been in place for a number of years and in December 2019 a new academic promotions board was introduced, and the older scheme continued until 24 April 2020 after which time new applicants would be considered under the new process.  The new process was agreed with the unions and under the auspices of the WRC.  The worker is eligible to make an application under the newer scheme.  It was submitted that it would not be appropriate to consider the worker under the new scheme as it would undermine the process.

Additional documentation was sent after the hearing including comparisons between both promotions process.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me both before and appropriately after the hearing by the parties.

The worker submits that the employer did not give appropriate consideration to his application for promotion to professor under the employer’s older system utilised for such promotions.  The worker further submits that he should be allowed to resubmit his application for promotion under the older process.  The employer submits that the worker did not progress past Stage 2 of the older process and that the worker can utilise the newer promotion process if he wishes to apply again. 

I note that there did not appear to be any dispute between the parties that the worker is highly qualified in his area of expertise.  It is further noted that the current promotions process was agreed with the unions under the auspices of the WRC and the worker would not appear to be prohibited from reapplying for the position of professor under the new process.  I note also that while the worker may regard his failure to be appointed as professor as unfair owing to perhaps his area of expertise, there is nothing to suggest that the employer deviated from the process in place at the time.  It is further noted that the union agreed to the members of the appeals board who reviewed the worker’s appeal. 

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.

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.

Promotion, industrial relations act