Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Staff Officer

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

Olajide Ogidan Forsa Trade Union

Cait Lynch 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

IR - SC - 00000939

13/12/2022

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on the 2nd October 2006 and is currently employed within the HR Business Services team at Grade IV. This dispute was submitted under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and was received by the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the WRC”) on the 13th December 2022.

The Worker interviewed for Grade V and VI roles within the HR Business Services Team on the 15th June 2022. According to the Worker she was first on the HR Business Servies Grade V panel and the Employer’s management deliberately denied her the opportunity to progress in her career knowing that the HR Business Services Grade V panel was going to expire on 15th December 2022. The Employer refuted the Worker’s claim in its entirety.

The Worker’s representative submitted the following on behalf of the Worker:

The Worker is employed as a Grade IV Staff Officer in the HR Department of the Employer and has been working in that department for 17 years. In June 2022 the Worker went for a Grade V post, she was interviewed and placed number one on the panel in October 2022. Between October 2022 and December 2022, two Grade V posts became available and neither of them was offered to the Worker. After the two Grade V employees left their posts the Worker wrote to the HR Recruitment Specialist on the 15th November 2022. It was submitted that the HR Recruitment Specialist did not deny the fact that there were vacancies but stated in her response that the vacancies were not going to be filled as advertised by HR Business Services because of restructuring.

The Worker contacted  the HR Business Services Manager  and the Head of HR Business Services on several occasions and she was repeatedly told that the Employer was restructuring.

The Worker’s trade union got involved and asked the Employer’s management to follow the procedure and offer one of the posts to the Worker. The Employer’s management refused on the grounds that they were restructuring and could not offer any of the vacant Grade V posts to the Worker.

According to the Worker as soon as the Grade V panel expired on the 15th December 2022 management went ahead to advertise two Grade V posts, one medical and one non-medical for a six month fixed contract on the 16th February 2023.

According to the Worker’s representative all efforts to resolve the issue locally proved abortive. The Employer’s management deliberately denied the Worker the opportunity to progress in her career knowing full well that the Grade V panel was going to expire on the 15th December 2022. The Worker sought a recommendation that she be given a Grade V post and salary back dated to June 2022 when her colleagues were promoted to Grade V posts.

The Employer’s representative submitted as follows:

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on the 2nd October 2006 and is currently employed within the HR Business Services team at Grade IV. The Worker interviewed for Grade V and VI roles within the HR Business Services Team on the 15th June 2022. The recruitment process was completed in line with the Employers recruitment and selection policy.

The Worker was placed on a panel for Grade V roles, however, was she unsuccessful for grade VI roles. There were 8 candidates involved in the interview process. 3 candidates were successful at interview, and 2 candidates were advised that they were placed on a 6-month panel for HR Business Services roles. The Worker was advised via a telephone call on the 15th June 2022 that she was second on the Grade V panel and that she was unsuccessful at the Grade VI interview. The Worker was placed on a panel for 6 months, with an expiry date of the 15th December 2022.

During the time between the 15th June 2022 and the 15th December 2022 two Grade V roles were vacant, however these were specialist roles, HR Information Services (IS) and HR (Medical) and were outside the scope of the panel set up for HR Business Services roles. Both roles were initially advertised prior to the set-up of the HR Business Services panel and were outside the scope of this process. The HR IS role was initially advertised in May 2022 and the vacancy failed to be filled due to the specialist nature of the role. The HR (Medical) role was advertised multiple times prior to the establishment of the HR Business Services panel. A candidate was offered this role on the 27th June 2022. A further Grade VI role became available however the Worker was not in scope for Grade VI roles.

The Worker was unhappy with these roles not being offered to her and submitted a grievance letter on the 24th November 2022, in line with the Employer’s grievance policy. The Business Services Manager responded to this grievance letter on the 1st December 2022 wherein she addressed each of the grievances raised by the Worker.

The Worker lodged her claim with the WRC on the 13th December 2022.

It was the Employer’s position that they acted reasonably when the Worker raised issues in relation to the recruitment process and duties of her role. The job description which formed part of the Worker's contract of employment clearly states that the list of duties is not exhaustive. The Employer followed their own recruitment policies and procedures in a fair and transparent manner at all times.

The Employer refuted the allegation that they in any way deviated from normal process and submitted that the roles that arose at a Grade V level during the Worker's time on the panel were clearly outside the scope of the panel and this was communicated to the Worker at the time. These roles had a separate recruitment process, both of which had commenced prior to the establishment of the panel, due to specialist skill requirement.

The Employer also submitted that the Grade VI role arose out of a genuine business need and was entirely legitimate in its grading structure. The Employer was, and is currently, undergoing huge structural change due to the integration of three separate entities under the Employer. This has resulted in structural changes within all departments, inclusive of HR, and all roles are constantly being evaluated and assessed in relation to the ongoing changes. It would not be unusual that some changes have and will arise from this ongoing change. The Employer submitted that it was also not unusual that some delays in confirming that vacant roles would or would not be filled would be normal practice while such major structural change was ongoing, and three entities were being brought under one governance.

The Employer attempted to resolve the issues put forward by the Worker on receipt of her grievance letter, however, no further engagement took place by the Worker until she lodged her complaint with the WRC, 14 days after receiving the grievance outcome letter.

The Employer further submitted that it acceded to the Worker’s request for job evaluation and shared the results of same with the Worker at the time.

The Employer’s representative submitted that the Employer could not have dealt with this issue in any more fair and transparent way, and while they accepted that the Worker was disappointed that no roles at a Grade V level within HR Business Services arose while she was on the panel, the Employer thoroughly refuted the allegation that this was as a result of any unfair process or procedure, or any deliberate attempt to deny the Worker a particular role.

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

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on the 2nd October 2006 and is currently employed within the HR Business Services team at Grade IV. It was common case that the Worker interviewed for Grade V and VI roles within the HR Business Services Team. The Employer outlined that there were eight candidates involved in the interview process. On the 15th June 2022 three candidates were advised via telephone that they were successful at interview and two candidates, one of which was the Worker, were advised via telephone call that they were placed on a six-month Grade V panel for HR Business Services roles.

While the Worker stated in her complaint form that following interview in June 2022 she was first on the Grade V HR Business Services panel the Worker accepted at the hearing that she was advised via a telephone call on the 15th June 2022 that she successful at interview for a Grade V role and that she was second on the Grade V panel for HR Business Services, that the panel had a duration of six-month panel but that she was unsuccessful for Grade VI roles. It was also accepted by the parties that as of the 25th October 2022 the Worker was first on the Grade V panel. 

According to Worker two Grade V posts became available in November 2022 and the Worker and her representative queried why these Grade V vacancies were not being offered to the Worker.

It is apparent from the documentation submitted by the Worker that the Employer engaged with the Worker in relation to her queries regarding Grade V vacancies however she was not satisfied with the responses and she submitted a formal grievance on the 24th November 2022.

I was not furnished with a copy of the Employer’s grievance procedure nor was I furnished with the Worker’s formal grievance letter dated the 24th November 2022 but I am satisfied, having considered the Employer’s response dated the 1st December 2022 and the evidence of the parties and the submissions made on their behalf that the Employer addressed, amongst other issues which are not relevant to the dispute before me, the Worker’s grievance regarding the Grade V panel and the new HR Grade VI post. The Worker was advised that if she was not satisfied with the HR Business Services Manager’s response she could refer the matter to the Head of Business Services under the next stage of the Employer’s grievance procedure.  

The Worker did not refer the matter to the Head of Business Services and therefore did not proceed to the next stage of the Employer’s grievance procedure. Instead, she submitted this dispute to the WRC at 17:15 on the 13th December 2022 and thereafter at 17.29 on the 13th December 2022 her representative informed the Head of Business Services by email that a dispute had been referred to the WRC. Whilst the Worker’s representative advised the Head of Business Services that if she deemed it necessary to engage in dialogue to resolve the Worker’s issue he was available to meet, having considered the contents of the email, I conclude that it does not put the Employer on notice that the Worker is progressing her grievance to the next stage of the Employer’s grievance procedure. It is well established that an Industrial Relations dispute is required to be exhausted internally before it is referred to the WRC.

The panel expired on the 15th December 2022 two days after the Worker lodged her complaint with the WRC. I note that the Worker articulated her grievance as “[t]he management deliberately denied [the Worker] the opportunity to progress in her career knowing fully well that the panel is going to expire on the 15th December 2022”. Having considered the documentation submitted in advance of the hearing before the WRC and the oral submissions at the hearing I do not accept the Worker’s contention that the Employer’s management deliberately denied the Worker the opportunity to progress in her career. I have reviewed the documentation and written submissions of the parties and the oral submissions presented at the hearing. I am satisfied that the Employer observed their own recruitment and selection policies and their procedures and processes in addressing the Worker’s grievance. I accept the Employer’s submissions that throughout November 2022 and indeed at the time the Grade V panel expired the Employer was continuing to assess and review the HR Business Services structure and staffing and that there was no replacement into a Grade V post.   

Having considered the arguments outlined by both parties and having regard to all the circumstances surrounding this dispute I do not recommend in favor of the Worker. However, I strongly urge the parties to take the opportunity to enter into discussions on how to address the Worker’s concerns regarding her lack of career opportunities and progression.