LCR22769

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s) ADJ-00033130, CA-00043865-001

BACKGROUND:

2. This case is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation by the Employer. On the 7th of December 2022 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-

"Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties, I recommend as follows:
In relation to the flaws in the shortlisting exercise, I find that an award of compensation is appropriate in all of the circumstances. Accordingly, I recommend that the Employer pay the
Worker compensation in the amount of €5,000.
In relation to the delay in investigating the Worker’s initial internal appeal, I find that an award of compensation is appropriate in all of the circumstances. Accordingly, I recommend that the
Employer pay the Worker compensation in the amount of €5,000.
For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that total compensation recommended to resolve this dispute is €10,000."

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 17th January 2023 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 6th June 2023.

DECISION:

The worker did not attend the hearing of the Court. The GRA did however attend and the Court, with the agreement of both parties, decided to proceed with the hearing of the employer side appeal of the decision of the Adjudication Officer.

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

The dispute before the Court arises from the conduct of a promotion / recruitment competition for the position of Garda driver in 2020 / 2021.

The worker was not successful in his application in that he was not shortlisted for interview. He raised a complaint as regards the conduct of the shortlisting process through the procedures set down by the Commission for Public Service Appointments. The Commission for Public Service Appointments (CPSA) is an independent statutory body which has responsibility for overseeing appointments to a wide range of positions in the Civil and Public Service. The CPSA ultimately issued findings and a report.

The worker in this case made two claims before the Court:

• Firstly, that there had been an extensive delay in completing an internal review of his complaint as regards the conduct of the competition. That internal review was undertaken in accordance with the procedures set out by the CPSA. He seeks compensation for the delay in completing the internal review initiated in accordance with the procedures set out by the CPSA.

  Secondly, he contends that the CPSA processes which he followed had identified breaches of the statutory code and other failings of the recruitment / promotion process. He claims that he should receive compensation for those failings.

The Court has noted that the result of the internal review carried out on foot of the worker’s complaint under the CPSA code was not communicated to him for a period of months after he had made his original complaint. No submission has been made that the code of the CPSA or any collective agreement between the parties directly makes provision for compensatory payments to workers where the internal review stage of the CPSA procedure is the subject of delay. The Court notes that the CPSA has addressed this delay in its’ report. In any event the Court is unclear as to the whether the impact of any such delay upon the worker has been such as to justify a compensatory payment to him.

In all of the circumstances, the Court concludes that no case has been made out for the award of compensation on foot of the exercise by the CPSA of its statutory functions.

The Court notes in reaching its conclusions in respect of this series of events, that the CPSA has given guidance to the employer as regards the future conduct of recruitment and promotion competitions of the sort giving rise to the within trade dispute.

In all the circumstances the Court has concluded that the appeal must succeed, and the decision of the Adjudication Officer should be set aside.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
SOC	______________________
22 June 2023	Chairman