LCR22480

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL
(REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AGENCY)

- AND -

1 WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY FORSA)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No’s: ADJ-00029303 CA-00039423-001.

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 02 July 2021 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 15 June 2021 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“Having considered the submissions of both parties and for the reasons stated, I do not recommend in favour of the worker’’.

Labour Court hearing took place on 16 September 2021.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The worker received confirmation that the promotion panel would be in existence for a period of 12 months. This did not take happen, and this was a deviation from the nationally agreed framework around the timeframes and duration of panels. She came fourth on the panel.

2. If the panel had remained in place for 12 months she would have been appointed to a position at Grade V.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The confined competition was an exception to the norm and related to two specific vacancies in line with the Libraries Agreement, the Workforce Plan and Departmental sanction. When those two posts were filled the panel expired. The normal established practice in the Local Authority and Sector are that vacancies are filled by Open Competition.

2. The advertisement for the competition did not state that a panel would remain in place for 12 months.

DECISION :

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

It is clear that the normal practice in the employment is that, by agreement, all vacancies are advertised either openly or to the entire sector. It is not disputed by the parties however that, by virtue of agreements concluded nationally between the parties, where the Workforce Plan results in new posts, those posts can be advertised, in the first instance only and on a once off basis, by way of a competition confined to the local authority itself.

It is also undisputed that two Library Staff Officer positions at Grade 5 resulted from the Library Workforce Plan completed in 2019. In line with agreements therefore, the first filling of these posts was by means of a competition confined to the local authority only.

It is now common case that only two persons were appointed from the panel formed as a result of the confined competition. This, in the Court’s view, reflects the nature of the competition and sanction associated with the conduct of the confined competition as an exception to normal agreed arrangements for the filling of vacancies in the sector.

The Trade Union seeks to have the Claimant, who was placed fourth on the relevant panel, appointed to a grade 5 position in the local authority. The Trade Union cites a lack of clarity and inconsistency of communication to the Claimant as a basis for her claim.

The Court can accept that the Council could have been clearer in the advertisement of the confined competition and that more effective communication internally and with the Claimant might have assisted in the avoidance of the current dispute.

The Court does not believe however that any basis exists for the proposition that, contrary to the agreements generally applying in the sector, the confined competition conducted to fill two vacancies only should be extended so as to result in three appointments from the panel.

The Court does not recommend concession of the claim.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Cathal Nurney, Court Secretary.