Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A General Operative

A Manufacturing Company

Representatives

A SIPTU Representative

A IBEC Representative

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 - 00004020

26/03/2025

The Employee is employed as a General Operative and alleged that he was unfairly treated in the process of an internal promotion position of Warehouse Specialist.

The Employee was appointed to a Warehouse role and was reverted back to production, along with others. A role of Warehouse Specialist was subsequently created and the Employee applied for the role but maintains that a friend of the Supervisor was appointed to the position who had less service and experience than the Employee. The Employee maintained this appointment was unfair and he sought to be appointed to the role or be awarded compensation instead.

The Employee commenced employment as a Production Operator in June of 2015.

Due to operational issues, it became necessary to reduce the Respondent's headcount in the warehouse on the weekend shift. To achieve this, a reduction of 3 “operator” roles occurred and a Warehouse “specialist” role was created. The Employee was one of three Operators to revert to their Production Operator roles. This was communicated to the Employee on 13th June 2024, and  st July 2024.  the Warehouse Specialist role. Unfortunately for the Employee, he was not the successful candidate. 

In the First week of July 2024: Interviews for the Warehouse Specialist role took place. The Employee applied and was interviewed, but was objectively outscored by another candidate. He requested and received his interview scorecard on 9 July 2024.   

On the 28 August 2024: The Employee raised a grievance, related to the process surrounding the reduction in Warehouse Operators, and the recruitment of a specialist Warehouse role, which the Employee was unsuccessful in. 

On February 2025 (Stage 2 Outcome): Following an investigation with the Warehouse Manager, a formal outcome was issued, which noted the following; 

“In relation to your second issue…I found that [Ms. A) was tasked with reducing by three warehouse operators total as part of a reduction plan. The three people with the least service were reverted back to their previous role as Production Operator. You were one of those three…The Warehouse Manager then got approval at the same time to hire a Warehouse Specialist which includes some extra tasks than the Warehouse Operator role…The recruitment process included a formal interview with both the Warehouse Manager and the Recruitment Specialist from the HR Department during which all candidates were assessed based on certain criteria. Additionally, the interview was scored according to a structured scoring system to ensure consistency in the selection process.”   

On 20 March 2025: the Employee appealed his grievance to stage 3 of the formal grievance procedure.   On 04 April 2025 the Employee was invited to a Stage 3 hearing   on April 7th.

On May 9th a detailed outcome was provided to the grievance which outlined the business reasons for the reverting of some staff to production and the justification for the Warehouse Specialist role which combined with reduced business activity and various staff changes were outlined. 

The new "Warehouse Specialist" role was advertised fairly on June 21, 2024. The recruitment process involved formal interviews and a structured scoring system conducted by the Warehouse Manager and a Talent Acquisition specialist. The individual who scored highest was offered the role.

The Respondent respectfully highlights a fundamental contradiction in the Employees case. The Employee alleges that his removal from the Warehouse and the creation of the Warehouse Specialist role was a sham designed to penalise him. However, it is an undisputed fact that the Employee actively applied and competed for this very role. He willingly participated in the formal interview process and subsequently requested and received his interview scorecard on July 9, 2024. 

It is a well-established principle of fair procedures that an individual cannot "approbate and reprobate" a process, meaning he cannot willingly participate in a recruitment competition in the hope of securing a promotion, only to retrospectively declare the entire process a retaliatory sham simply because he was unsuccessful. This contradiction is further highlighted by the fact that the Employee recently applied for yet another position in the Warehouse again in March 2026. Had the Employee scored highest in the objective scoring system and been awarded the role in July 2024,  he undoubtedly would have accepted it as a legitimate business decision. His grievance, therefore, is evidently grounded not in the operational restructuring itself, but rather in his dissatisfaction with the outcome of a fair, competitive interview process.   

The Respondent submits that there has been no breach of natural justice or fair procedures. The operational decisions regarding the warehouse were rooted in objective  recruitment practices. The Employee was treated in a consistent manner as his two colleagues who were in the same boat as him. 

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.  I have examined the detailed submission and the oral contribution from the Employee and his Representative at the Hearing. I note that the Employer was overstaffed at the time by 11 employees and by 3 employees in the Warehouse. The Employer also set out at the Hearing significant staff reductions that have taken place during the last year. The Employee was assigned to manufacturing as a result of staffing being overbudget in the Warehouse.. A position was later advertised for a Warehouse Specialist and what appeared to be a fair evaluation process took place. The Employee alleged that the Supervisor at the time appointed a friend of hers but this was not supported by any evidence to say the selection process was biased. I have reviewed the scores of the candidates and cannot see anything that would suggest an unfair process. I also find that asking the WRC to replace a successful candidate is not legally possible and unfair to the successful candidate , who had no voice in the Hearing. I recommend that the parties accept that the grievance regarding the Warehouse appointment is complete and that the parties consider the dispute closed. It was obvious that the Employee has designs to progress in life and work and I recommend, should he initiate it, that he have a discussion with the organisations talent or HR/training specialist as to the areas where did not score 5 in the interview and in general what he needs to do to improve his chances in each scoring area when applying for a role in the Warehouse should it arise again. To be clear, this is not a re-examination of his scores attained….it is to assist him with his future aspirations and does not give the Employee any greater right to a new role than any other Employee that may apply.

I find that the actions of the Employer did not show any bias or unfairness and I find in favour of the Employer.

Promotion