Employee

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Security Officer

A Commercial State Company

Representatives

SIPTU

 Represented by Management

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-00047571-001

10/12/2021

The employee has been working for this employer since 2005.  She has a specific role as a security officer and she works 24 hours per week.  She has applied for a number of promotions, without success, and, over the years, to build on her skills, she had taken on a number of voluntary assignments, such as manual handling trainer, fire marshal trainer, communications representative and training partner. 

The assessment process is based on four stages:

1.              A panel interview and behavioural assessment by a team from HR and the business area;

2.              Personality profiling;

3.              A competency-based interview assessment by a team from HR and the business;

4.              A round-table calibration session to ensure consistency regarding how each candidate was assessed.

In December 2020, the employee was one of 12 candidates placed on a panel for a role as a duty manager, but only six candidates were appointed.  In 2021, she applied for a vacancy as a team supervisor; however, again, she successfully completed the first three stages of the process, but she was not appointed. 

As part of the employee’s assessment for a job as a team supervisor, references were accepted from un-named managers, and this had the effect of a decision being made not to promote her to this position.  The employee claims that she was not informed that references would be considered as part of the assessment process, and she thought that the successful applicants would be appointed at the end of a competency-based interview.  She claims that these references from an unknown source has “road-blocked” her career and has caused her stress, anxiety and paranoia.

The employer’s position is that the recruitment process for the position of team supervisor was in line with its published policies.  The employee’s grievance was investigated and the conclusion was that all the candidates were treated fairly.

At the opening of his submission on behalf of the employee, Mr Cullen referred to the anonymous reference provided to the assessment panel for the tole of team supervisor.  The reference stated that the employee was “Not a team player, not a good role model, unreliable & not respected amongst peers.”  At the hearing, the HR business partner confirmed that this was a composite of the comments of three separate referees.  The reference emerged when the employee looked for feedback regarding her assessment for the team supervisor role.  She was informed by one of the interviewers that managers gave her a bad reference; however, it took over a year for the employee to get a copy of the text of the reference.  At the hearing, the employee said that, in the end, it was a relief to get the reference, although she said that she cried when she got it and that it had a huge emotional impact. 

In May 2021, the employee submitted a grievance regarding the assessment process for the roles of duty manager and team supervisor.  Mr Cullen said that it was particularly difficult to accept that the employee was not appointed to the role of team supervisor, when she had earlier reached the short-listing stage for the job of duty manager, which is a more senior role to that of team supervisor.  On July 14th 2021, at a meeting to discuss the employee’s grievance, the head of recruitment informed the employee that a confidential reference was considered as part of the assessment process and this resulted in her not getting the job.  In a letter dated July 21st 2021, the head of recruitment said that internal reference checks were conducted “in line with our standard selection processes.”

The following day, a SIPTU official wrote to the head of recruitment and said that their position was that the grievance investigation had not been concluded and he asked who carried out the reference checks and who provided the references.  He said that the reference-checking appeared to be at odds with the competency-based assessment process. The head of recruitment replied and said that the investigation of the employee’s grievance was closed.

Further correspondence was exchanged however, and, on September 2nd, the head of recruitment wrote to the employee’s SIPTU representative and informed him that the reference checks were carried out by the head of HR for the security section where the employee works and that they were carried out in confidence with a number of line managers in that section.

The employee’s position is that an unfair process led to an unfair outcome and has caused her a great deal of distress.  In addition, she has been denied an opportunity to work full-time as a supervisor, with the possibility of increasing her earnings.  In an email to Mr Cullen on August 31st 2022, she said that she feels that she has been bullied, victimised, treated differently and penalised since she engaged in the grievance procedure in early 2021.  She said that, in 17 years working for this employer, she had never been the subject of a disciplinary hearing, and she has never had a complaint made about her.

The employee was involved in organising the first engagement day for employees and she was featured in a training video for customers.  She said that she has given up working in her voluntary roles and she resigned from the communications team.  In the book of documents submitted at the hearing, she provided a letter from a manager in the communications team who thanked her for her contributions and said that she would be missed.  She also provided me with a letter written in April 2013 from a security manager acknowledging her successful secondment to the training department.

As a result of the anonymous reference, the employee said that she has been left feeling paranoid about who said what and she thinks that her colleagues don’t respect her.  She said that she now questions her abilities and her self-esteem. 

In advance of the hearing of this dispute, the HR business partner provided a submission setting out the employer’s case.

The HR business partner said that, before the final calibration session to ensure consistency in the selection process is carried out, references are sought from managers in the section where a candidate is currently employed.   This was confirmed to the employee when she looked for feedback when she was not successful for the role of team supervisor in May 2021.

On July 21st 2021, the head of recruitment wrote to the employee and her union representative to confirm the outcome of her investigation into the employee’s grievance.  In her letter, she concluded that,

“It is my assessment that the selection campaign for both of these roles was robust and fair.  All candidates were assessed against a consistent set of criteria throughout each campaign.  Each campaign was a separate competition and selection for these roles was based on overall assessment of each candidate taking account of all the stages through the campaign.”

In her letter, the recruitment manager acknowledged the employee’s desire to advance in her career and she offered her the support of the company’s leadership coach. 

In the ensuing correspondence between the employee’s union representative and the head of recruitment in July and August 2021, the union requested information about who carried out the references and who provided the references.  On September 2nd, the recruitment manager wrote to the SIPTU official and confirmed that the head of the section where the employee worked carried out the reference checks with a number of line managers in the section.

Section 10 of the company’s recruitment and selection policy sets out how references are managed as part of the assessment process.  The section mostly deals with references from external candidates who are not known to the company.  However, there is a provision that “verbal reference checks must be recorded by HR.”  It is the company’s position that this was adhered to regarding each of the roles for which the employee was considered in late 2020 and early 2021.

At the conclusion of the investigation into her grievance about this matter, the head of recruitment found that the selection process had been robust and fair.  She also offered the employee the opportunity to consult with a leadership coach to support her aspiration to secure a promotion.

Concluding her submission, the HR business partner said that, upon reflection, the company could have made it clear to the candidates that references would be looked for and that managers would be asked for their assessment of the candidates applying for vacancies.  She said that this is done now as part of an updated recruitment process.

The HR business partner said that the employee’s career has not been blocked, because each recruitment process is a standalone and independent assessment and the outcome from one competition is not linked to another.  She said that the employee’s grievance has been investigated and all the relevant policies were adhered to and all the candidates were treated fairly and in the same way.

As the investigation into this employee’s grievance has come to a conclusion at the level of the enterprise, and, as the employee is not satisfied with the outcome, my responsibility now is to make a recommendation to bring the matter to an end.

In relation to internal competitions, the company refers to its policy of seeking references “in confidence” from managers in the departments where the candidates are currently employed.  This is a euphemism for seeking references on an anonymous basis and I find that there is no basis on which this could be considered to be fair.  The provision of an anonymous reference hides the motivation of the referee and leaves the process open to being contaminated by some malign intention, for a reason that is not apparent.

To be provided with a “reference” stating that a candidate is not a team player, not a good role model, unreliable and not respected, is a red flag for any hiring manager.  Apart from the job that the candidate is applying for, such a reference must raise a serious concern about the employee in general, and the impact she is having in her area of work.  I find it extremely odd that, having received this reference, no action was taken to check if it was accurate, and, if it was, to bring it to the attention of the employee, so that her alleged conduct could be addressed.  It is clear to me that an employee who could be truthfully described in these terms is a risk to the organisation that they work in, but this was not validated by the employer.

From the employee’s perspective, I understand the devastation that this reference caused.  It must have resulted in her suspecting all the managers that she worked with, and trying to work out who would behave in such an unsupportive manner.  I can understand how it must have made her doubt herself and to feel undervalued and undermined.  I note from the correspondence that she sent to the head of employee relations on July 19th 2022, that she feels victimised and penalised for having pursued this matter as a grievance and she has since been involved in two disciplinary investigations.  She has continued to work for this employer, although, at the hearing, she said that she is working towards a role outside the section she has worked in since 2005. 

At the hearing, the employer’s representative said that they have changed their policy in relation to the procurement of references for internal candidates.  With this in mind, I recommend the following further changes to the recruitment and selection policy:

When an internal candidate applies for a vacancy, they should be asked to nominate the managers from whom references will be requested.

When a manager is asked to provide a reference, they should be asked to provide it in writing, perhaps in response to a short questionnaire.  The candidate should be given a copy of their referee’s written reference.

From the perspective of this employee, the change of policy I have recommended will not undo the distress and hurt that she suffered as a result of the anonymous reference being provided for the two roles she applied for in December 2020 and January 2021.  It is my view however, that she can take significant credit for bringing about the change to the recruitment policy that has already been implemented and I would encourage the employer to give serious consideration to my recommendations for further change.

While Mr Cullen sought compensation for the employee, it is my view that this issue is more important than money, and that compensation will not undo the hurt that was caused.  I recall from the hearing that the employee said that she had engaged with the leadership coach regarding how she might progress in her career.  I recommend that the employer provide funding, up to a limit of €3,000 for the employee to undertake a professional or external training course of her choice to support her objective to progress in her career.

Recruitment process, references