ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006821
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | A Complainant | A Council |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00009191-001 | 19/01/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00009191-002 | 19/01/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00009191-003 | 19/01/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00009191-004 | 19/01/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00009191-005 | 19/01/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00009191-006 | 19/01/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/08/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 or such other act as may be referred to in the 2015 Act, made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or dispute. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing.
The worker herein has referred a matter for dispute resolution under Section 13 Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and the referral has been made within six months of the initial circumstances of the relevant dispute.
Matters Withdrawn.
The worker withdrew the following matters: ADJ 6821 CA 9191 – 001, 002,003,005,006. He proceeded with ADJ 6821 CA 9191 -004 only.
Background:
The worker has been carrying out his role as acting Senior Executive Officer for the respondent for a period in excess of 10 years. He is seeking to have his position regularised. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
A panel was formed in October, 2015. The life span of the panel is normally two years. The Public Appointments Service have taken charge of all appointments in relation to the respondent. The purpose of the aforesaid panel was to regularise posts up to Senior Executive level. A total of four posts have been filled from this panel. The worker has been an ‘Acting’ Senior Executive Officer for District C for the last ten years. He has carried out all of the required functions within that District for that period. In relation to the regularisation of his post he has already invoked the respondent’s grievance procedure. That process did not bring about the desired result for the worker. In March, 2015, he was informed that his post was to be regularised. It was advertised. However, due to the flaw in relation to the areas the position was advertised in, it had to be re-advertised and the closing date for application had to be extended. The worker expressed his concerns in relation to how and where the post was advertised. In his opinion the fact that it was not originally advertised in his area was a deliberate attempt to try and keep him from applying. Following the interview process he was placed 6th on the panel. The number of posts was 11. After the first two on the panel were appointed the number of vacant posts was 3. At a later date two others were appointed and one retired, leaving the number of vacant posts at 2. The worker at this stage in the process was placed 2nd on the panel. Nobody was or ever has been appointed to District C, the workers area. In 2017 the workers Union was informed that the respondent had received sanction from the Department to fill the two remaining posts. This did not happen. It wasn’t until today that the worker was informed that the sanction was only in relation to an open competition. The worker feels this is fundamentally unfair and is a personal attack on him and his chance of having employment status regularised. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent accepts that it has received sanction from the relevant department to fill the three senior executive officer posts however the position must be filled by way of open competition. They do not have the authority/ sanction to fill the posts from the existing panel. The respondent is anxious to fill these posts as quickly as possible. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The panel, the subject matter of this dispute was formed in 2015. Four posts have been filled from this panel, two shortly after the panel was created and two at a later date. The worker, originally placed 6th on this panel has now moved up to position 2 due to the appointment of the four aforementioned workers. At present there are three Acting Senior Executive posts yet to be regularised. The worker’s post is one of those. On the basis that the worker has been carrying out an Acting Senior Executive role in District Area C, alone, for the last ten years, is placed 2nd on the panel and that four other Senior Executive posts have been regularised using the panel, I recommend, in the interests of fairness and consistency that this workers post be regularised using the existing panel. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.]
I recommend, in the interests of fairness and consistency, that the workers post be regularised using the existing panel. |
Dated: 24/8/17
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Key Words:
|