Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Senior Lecturer

A University

Representatives

Marie O'Connor SIPTU

Kevin Feighery Ibec

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 - 00001418

29/05/2023

The Worker is employed as a Senior Lecturer and applied for a Professor Position and claimed the selection and appeal process was flawed.

The Worker applied for promotion to the new "Professor In" Grade in February, 2022 Round 5. She was not successful. She believed her application was not successful partly due to the fact that the procedure was fundamentally flawed. The Worker set out, in some considerable detail, her concerns about the process and the lack of rigor in the appeals process and sought to be promoted based on these concerns.

The Worker claims the promotion process was “fundamentally flawed.” However, the process was applied in accordance with the University’s Academic Promotions Policy (introduced in 2020 following union consultation). Her application was:

a)   Reviewed by a qualified Promotions Committee;

b)   Assessed under published and transparent criteria;

c)   Open to appeal on procedural grounds to a separate committee the APAC), which she pursued; Case law (e.g., Bord Gáis Éireann v A Worker, AD1377 and An Employee v A City Council, ADJ-00025506) affirms that the role of the WRC is not to second-guess internal decisions, but to assess procedural fairness. The Worker was afforded every procedural protection, including feedback and appeal opportunities. No deviation from fairness or objectivity occurred. It is clear from the various submissions of the Worker that they are seeking the WRC to agree that the Academic Promotions Policy is flawed. This is not the function of the WRC in an industrial relations complaint particularly where a process has been collectively negotiated with Trade Unions. The Adjudication Officer must assess whether the Worker was afforded procedural fairness and the Respondent respectfully submits that any objective review of the evidence will find that fair procedures were followed assuring the principles of natural justice were adhered to.

d)   The Worker remains eligible to apply for future promotion rounds in accordance with the scheme’s reapplication timelines. She has been eligible to re-apply since February 2024.

Conclusion The Respondent submits:

e)   No facts have been established from which discrimination can be inferred.

f)     The promotion process was fair, transparent, and procedurally sound.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The Worker set out in considerable detail her concerns about the process and her appeal. It is not the role of an Adjudicator to undertake a detailed and quite exhaustive re-evaluation of a system that is agreed and in place. This is a matter for the Employer and the Trade Unions affected at a time they agree or as set out in the policy.

  It is well established practice that a third party will not insert itself into a promotion decision of an Employer unless the grounds are blatantly unfair or discriminatory. I have considered this dispute and find that the promotion process was conducted in line with well established and agreed (with two Trade Unions) processes and there were insufficient grounds put forward by the Worker for a third party to insert itself into a decision of the Interview Panel arrived at in line with agreed and established procedures. Candidates who are not successful at interview generally feel aggrieved at the outcome and must establish a fundamental ground that would lead to the outcome of an independent panel of interviewers to be reassessed and while the Worker has set out in some considerable detail six aspects of the process she had issue with, and having considered these, I have concluded that none individually or together collectively would justify a third party recommendation to amend the original decision of the Interview panel.

I note the Worker can (or may have already) reapplied for the promotion post and I suggest the Worker summarise her observations and submit them for consideration by the Respondent and the relevant Trade Unions in their next review of the system. It is a matter for those two parties to consider any observations on the process and make any agreed changes to the system and communicate them to all future staff seeking promotion under the system. It is not the role of the Adjudicator to suggest changes to the agreed system based on the input of one, albeit well intentioned, person.

I find in favour of the Employer.

Promotion