|
FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : A TRADE UNION DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No.ADJ-00030334, CA-00039860-001 A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on 18 October 2021.
In the view of the Court a significant element of the within dispute is the fact that a diary which was published by the organisation in advance of the initiation of the impugned selection procedure carried the name of an individual as occupying the role for which the Claimant subsequently competed. That development was, in the submission of the Claimant, compounded by an event at a conference where the Claimant says she was informed by another individual that she, and not the Claimant, was to be appointed to the role at issue. This exchange took place, in the submission of the Claimant, in advance of the initiation of any competition for appointment to the role at issue. The Court can find no basis to support a contention that the employer was not entitled to conduct a competition of the nature which occurred in relation to the appointment of a PA to work with a senior office holder. Indeed, it appears to the Court that the relevant agreed staff handbook recognises that the assignment of staff is a matter for the General Secretary and no suggestion is made in that handbook that staff assignment decisions must be preceded by a competition at all. The Claimant contends that an agreement dating from 2010 has application to the competition at issue in the claim before the Court. The Court was unable to find a basis for this contention and noted that a range of staff assignments within grade had taken place since 2010 without reference to the 2010 agreement. The Court has carefully examined the written and oral submissions of the parties and is unable to conclude that the conduct of the impugned selection process was unfair or in breach of any agreements in place in the employment. The Court believes in particular that the ‘diary’ matter was an event which was unconnected with the impugned selection procedure, and which was not indicative of pre-determination or bias. The Court does believe that the events in relation to the ‘diary’ matter and the alleged conference event affected the Claimant’s perception of the fairness of the selection procedure in which she participated. The Court has concluded that the Claimant is incorrect in her belief in relation to this matter but regards the entire matter as unfortunate, particularly as the Claimant is a worker who has given lengthy service of such quality to this employer. The Court has concluded that the employer’s conduct in relation to the selection procedure for assignment to the position at issue was not tainted by unfairness and was not outside of the agreed arrangements in the employment. However, having regard to the length and quality of service of the Claimant, and understanding how she viewed the inadvertent occurrence of the ‘diary’ and alleged conference events, the Court, without prejudice and without any implication of unfairness or pre-determination on the part of the employer, recommends that a payment of €5,000 should be made to the worker as a gesture of goodwill and in the interest of good industrial relations, in full and final settlement of this matter.
NOTE |
