Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Tom Fitzgerald  Unite the Union

Hugh Hegarty Management Support Services (Ireland) Ltd

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 - 00001433

04/06/2023

This matter came before the WRC dated 04/06/2023 2023 as a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The specific complaint falls under Industrial Relations Issues Type and the Worker has a trade dispute he would like investigated. 

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 15/07/2010. 

The Worker claims he has been overlooked for promotion unfairly on a number of occasions. 

The Employer submits the application of the selection process as applied to the Worker was fair and reasonable at all times and the Worker does not perform well at interview.  

The Worker seeks that I recommend that he be appointed to the Grade for which he has interviewed unsuccessfully or that I recommend an agreed process be put in place for this to happen. 

Both parties filed helpful written submissions including supporting documentation prior to the date of hearing. 

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer in July 2010 and has progressed through the levels to the level at which he is currently which requires that he interview in order to progress to the level he seeks.  He undertook the necessary educational course in 2017.  The Worker submits he has been interviewed several times since and he submits he has been excluded due to a culture of promotional advancement in the workplace on the basis of “it’s not what you know it’s who you know” culture. 

The Worker raised a grievance after his most recent experience of being overlooked.  The Worker appealed the outcome of the grievance and his appeal was not upheld.  The Worker contends that he lost out at his most recent interview despite the fact he had the specific qualifications beyond one of the successful candidates and more experience in the workplace than the second successful candidate.  The Worker submits he was expected to train these two individuals despite the fact he lost out for promotion against them.

In respect of a further appointment on which he lost out when one of the aforementioned changed employment in the workplace and the Worker again failed to secure the position, the Worker submits that the interview process is not conducted in a fair manner and the successful candidate in this instance is the partner of another employee in the workplace.  The Worker contends the interview process is not conducted in a fair manner and in his experience subjectively bias.  The Worker submits there is a structural deficit for someone at the grade which he seeks rather than having someone act up indefinitely and he seeks be appointed into that grade or that an agreed process be put in place for that to happen. 

It is the Employer’s position that the Worker’s claims are not well founded and that the selection process is not unfair and nor was any other staff member given preferential treatment.  The Employer submits that throughout the course of his employment, the Worker has applied for and interviewed for promotion.  The Employer submits that during the interview process the Worker constantly scored lower than other candidates and as such he was unsuccessful.  The Employer submits the grievance the Worker raised outlining that he felt the selection and recruitment process was unfair was thoroughly investigated, witnesses were interviewed and the outcome when issued was appealed by the Worker.  The appeal was not upheld and the outcome of the appeal provided detailed reasons as to why it was not upheld.

The Employer submits that at all times it operates a fair and impartial process that is outlined in the policy and available for all staff and candidates to see in advance of applying for a position.  Once a position is identified as needing to be filled a “person specification” form is created which outlines the nature of the role, essential skills required, and the desirable elements for the position.  Following authorisation, the HR department creates a job description and the vacancy notice is posted internally on notice boards, with third party advertisers and with recruitment agencies.  The policy specifically states that individual managers cannot advertise or initiate any type of recruitment process without express authorisation. 

Candidates apply for the position with a CV and cover letter.  Applications are reviewed and suitable candidates are selected, informed and brought forward for interview.  Each interview panel consists of three people one of which is always from a HR department. 

At interview the panellists are provided with a copy of all the questions and a candidate evaluation form, which is completed by each member of the panel.  Following the interviews, the evaluation forms are given to HR where the scores are combined and a successful candidate is selected based on the overall score. 

Having regard to the Worker’s position that following unsuccessful recruitment processes he then has to train the staff who were successful the Employer submits the Worker is failing to recognise the distinction between training and showing a new member of staff the operational aspects of the workplace or a specific department therein.  The Employer submits it has been asked and he has shown new employee’s operational aspects of local practice and procedure but at no time was the Worker asked or did he train new members of staff.

The Employer in response to the Worker’s submission that another candidate did not have the necessary qualifications in the job description as set out in his grievance submits the job description refers to XXXX diploma or equivalent qualification.  The candidate in question had acquired a Masters. 

It is the Employer’s position that the claim is without merit.  The Employer is seeking a recommendation that the dispute is not well-founded.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties and the information which was provided at hearing.   Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the dispute and in fulfilment of my duties under statute. 

There was no case made out at hearing by the Worker of a defect in the management of his grievance or the management of his subsequent appeal.   The Worker raised no procedural issue about the conduct of the aforesaid processes.  I note the Employer Representative had involvement in the internal procedures and the Worker representative made refence to a possible conflict here.  For the avoidance of doubt, nothing turns on this for the purposes of the hearing of this dispute as the matter before me relates to the Worker’s claim that promotional process / opportunities have passed him unfairly as set out in his WRC complaint form.  That is the only matter that is properly before me at hearing.  The crux here is the Worker’s poor performance at interview which has resulted negatively on him in terms of progression and all other matters raised are peripheral to this and cannot be considered for the purpose of this recommendation. 

Notwithstanding, one other matter of direct relevance to the crux of his dispute raised by the Worker regarding unfairness in the process related to persons he perceived as not having the relevant qualifications yet having succeeded at interview.  Clarity was provided at hearing by the Employer on this matter and I found it to be a reasonable clarification.   The Employer advertises globally and the relevant qualification happens to be one that is provided in a UK college.  Accordingly, prospective job candidates from other countries / continents will more than likely not have that particular qualification but they will have an equivalent to it.   

The Employer submits the Worker has been through the interview process five times and has fallen well short of the successful candidates on each occasion.  The Employer submits the Worker does not perform well at interview.  Having carefully reviewed the Worker’s interview evaluation form I asked him if he agreed with the feedback content and he stated that he did. 

I cannot recommend that the Worker be appointed to the Grade he seeks as there would be an inherent unfairness to all other future potential candidates in so doing even if I were inclined to do so.  I find this to be both an unreasonable and unworkable proposal in the circumstances.   The Worker representative as an alternative to appointing the Worker to the Grade that he seeks suggests than an agreed process be put in place for this to happen.  There is an agreed process in place in the form of a Recruitment and Selection Policy.  I can find no reason nor would it be appropriate for me to interfere with the Employer Recruitment and Selection Policy.  It is reasonable in all the circumstances to find that the only way in which the Worker will achieve the Grade he seeks is to get through the interview process successfully and there is no other “agreed process” to which the Worker representative refers that I could recommend. 

It is apparent that the Worker has reached an impasse at this stage having been unsuccessful at five interviews.  Whilst I have every sympathy for him in his lack of career progression which has been stymied by his poor performance at interview, the resolution of this matter is entirely in his hands.  If the Worker is going to achieve the Grade he seeks he is going to have to perform at interview because there is nobody else who can do this for the Worker apart from himself and I have no doubt that he will succeed based on his strong work performance and having already attained the necessary qualification.  All that is missing is the interview skills piece. 

Competency based interviewing is a technique utilised to elicit from candidates examples of past experience that show that they could do well in the role for which they are being interviewed.  Questions are formulated around four or five key competencies for a job and having been informed in advance what the competencies are each candidate is asked the same questions.  I am satisfied the Worker has an abundance of past experience on which he can draw in preparing his examples of past experience under each of the competencies. 

Preparation for the interview is key as it is simply not enough to put on a suit and turn up for a competency-based interview without having documented all the examples drawn from past experience under the headings of the relevant competencies which he can then familiarise himself with and commit to memory.  Furthermore, the Worker can bring the documents outlining all his examples under the relevant competencies with him to the next interview as an aide memoire as recommended by one of the Employer representatives at hearing and I am satisfied he will be well equipped to do himself justice at interview which is something only he can do. 

To this end, I strongly urge the Worker to identify whatever type of training or coaching he needs and to avail himself of the Staff Development Fund.  I understand the Worker has family commitments outside of work.  However, there are several helpful sources of information available regarding competency-based interviews and preparing for same online that he can access from his phone at his convenience, and this will prove helpful to him in identifying the type of formal training he requires of which there several providers. 

In order to ensure the Worker is appropriately prepared for the next interview I recommend HR facilitate the Worker by appointing a mentor who could link in with him from time to time and provide support to him. 

Interview skills; competency-based interviews;