LCR23051

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00044299 (CA-00055051-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 13 February 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 5 January 2024 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation.

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

A Labour Court hearing took place on 3 October 2024.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by the Worker of Decision ADJ-00044299 of an Adjudication Officer in respect of the Worker’s unsuccessful application for the role of Senior Technical Officer (STO) within the employment. The Adjudication Officer did not recommend concession of the Worker’s claim.

The Workers representative submitted that the competition for the post of Senior Technical Officer with this Employer was dealt with by an incorrectly constituted interview panel. It was his submission that in he believed that circular 0013/2006 and WRC Agreement C-165609/21 would apply to the process. However, the process took place under different rules.

 It is the Workers submission that his interview should be redone and/ or he should be compensated for the breach of his rights. The representative for the Worker confirmed that the main differences were that the old circular required an external person on the interview panel and consisted of four members, and that this did not happen on this occasion.

IBEC on behalf of the employer submitted that the competition in question was held in 2022. The process was held in accordance with the agreement reached at conciliation with SIPTU, who hold the representation rights for that category of workers.

 The Circular the Worker is seeking to rely on predates the establishment of Atlantic Technological University which came in to being in 2021 as provided for under the Technological Universities Act (2018).  The competition was held in line with its agreement with SIPTU and the relevant procedures applying to Technological Universities at that time. The Employer confirmed that there was an independent person on the interview panel but that under the new procedure it was a three-person panel as opposed to a four-person panel. The Worker accepted that at the time of the interview the named independent person was not an employee of the University.

The Court having listened carefully to both sides finds that the Employer operated within the agreed procedures and on that basis cannot recommend concession of the Workers claim.

 The Decision of the Adjudication officer is upheld

 The Court so Decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AR	______________________
18 October 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.