Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Technical Officer

A Technical University

Representatives

 Gilvarry & Associates Solicitors

IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication in accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

CA-00055051-001

13/02/2023

The dispute arises as a result of the employee’s unsuccessful application for the role of Senior Technical Officer (STO) within the employment.

The employee’s representative stated that the provisions of circular (013-2006) and conciliation agreement (c-165609/21) in respect of the filling of the STO posts were not applied to the competitive selection process. The employee’s representative further stated that the employee’s knowledge, experience, communication and interpersonal skills were incorrectly weighted at interview, and he was denied the correct appeals process in relation to his unsuccessful application for the role of STO.

The employer stated that the recruitment and selection policy was agreed with the union representing the Technical Officers (TO) and that the interview process was carried out as agreed. The employer stated that the provisions of circular (013-2006) and conciliation agreement (c-165609/21) did not apply as the circular issued in line with the RTC Act 1992 which was superseded by the TU Act of 2018. In respect of the policies and procedures used in the selection and appeals process, all were agreed with the trade union representing the grade following the designation of the University in April 2022.

I note from the submissions of the parties that the WRC conciliation agreement from January 2022 stated that circular 0013/2006 applied in respect of the filling of the posts of Senior Technical Officer (STO). In particular, the circular provides for a four-person interview board as opposed to a three-person interview board which is an issue raised by the complainant. However, by the time the interviews took place, in Q4 of 2022, the designation of the Technical University had taken place in April 2022 and the filling of the STO posts were carried out in line with the policies and procedures agreed with the union representing the grade.

The employee’s position as conveyed by his legal representative is that the selection and appeals processes were flawed and that the results of the selection process should not stand. However, I note that the employee is a member of the trade union that agreed the policies and procedures with the employer on behalf of those it represents and while the employee is obviously dissatisfied with being unsuccessful at interview, I find that it is not an option for him to seek to challenge a collectively agreed recruitment and selection process or the agreed appeals mechanism in relation to that process. In my view, all processes were carried out in line with the agreed procedures relating to the competitive process.

It is also the case that a WRC Adjudication Officer has no role in recommending in favour of such a challenge as to do so would undermine the very nature of collective negotiations and agreement between employers and employee representatives. For those reasons and on the basis of the collective implications of the issues raised, I do not recommend in favour of the employee.

Having considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute I do not recommend in favour of the employee.