Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Inspector

An Agency

Representatives

SITPU

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 - 00003653

15/01/2025

The Worker is an Inspector with the Employer since September 2019.

In March 2023, the Worker attended an interview for a Level 3 (“L3”) Inspector position and was ranked 11th on the resulting panel.

In December 2023, the Worker's Senior Manager indicated that new Level 3 manager posts would be assigned to the regional office he worked from in the new year. One of these included a new post, and it was suggested that the Worker would likely be leaving the current team.

On 31 July 2024, the Director General issued an email regarding staff sanctions, which included several new Level 3 posts in new work areas.

However, on 16 January 2024, an email was sent to all staff advertising the formation of a new Level 3 Officer panel. No communication had been received by the Worker prior to this announcement.

The Worker contacted HR to clarify their standing regarding the 2023 panel and to express concern over the lack of prior communication, especially given the Employer's recruitment and appointment policy, which states that “Open and active communications on the recruitment and selection process and how candidates are assessed have been adopted.” Following discussions with HR, the 2023 panel was extended for six months and designated to be used for filling vacancies first.

During 2024, none of the L3 posts were allocated to the regional office.

March 2023 Panel: The first nine candidates secured positions, while the remaining five, all seeking the same regional office, were not offered posts including the Worker. This panel expired in September 2024.

March 2024 This panel was extended to the regional office, with only the regional office-based candidates remaining. All others were assigned posts within three months of the panel's formation (by June 2024).

July 2024 Competition: Shortly after a candidate from the March panel received an offer, a new competition was launched to fill L3 vacancies. At the time, two panels were in place with candidates seeking the regional office as a base. However, the advertisement for this competition specified another regional office or a city office as base locations, effectively excluding at least seven individuals who had been placed on panels and were seeking the regional office based roles.

In March 2025, a recruitment campaign was launched by the Employer, advertising three offices as potential base locations. At least 14 candidates were assigned to the resulting panel. Approximately 50% of those shortlisted for interview had indicated the regional office as their preferred base location. Of these, nearly half were successfully placed on the panel.

The Worker relied upon the Recruitment and Selection Policy.

The Worker invoked the Grievance Procedure with the outcome appealed. It was the Workers submission that the evidence was not considered by the investigator.

In conclusion the Worker submitted he has not been afforded equality of opportunity and has been left finically disadvantaged.

The Employer outlined the Recruitment and Selection Policy.

It provided a breakdown of its offices and the number of posts per each office location.

At the outset of the application , it was submitted that applicants must select the location they wish to be considered for should a position be offered.

It was submitted the Employer's policy for filling vacancies and determining post locations prioritises continuity, with existing roles typically refilled in the same location unless strategic business needs require otherwise. New post locations are decided through strategic workforce planning, considering organisational design and succession planning. Flexibility is maintained to meet operational demands and ensure fairness.

Recruitment is conducted through open competitive processes, publicly advertised. Candidates are shortlisted and interviewed by panels comprising internal and external members. Selection is merit-based, with candidates ranked by interview performance. Offers are made in order of ranking, and panels remain valid for 12 months to accommodate future vacancies.

The Employer explained once a vacancy arises and the location is confirmed, a job offer is extended to the next eligible candidate on the panel who has selected that location as their preference. The offer includes details such as job description, terms and conditions, salary, tenure, location, and working hours. Formal appointment is subject to meeting all pre-employment criteria, including medical clearance, satisfactory references (for external candidates), and submission of required documentation.

The Employer submitted it adheres to a Recruitment Code of Practice, which outlines principles of integrity, impartiality, fairness, and ethical conduct. Recruitment is merit-based, ensuring no unjustifiable advantage or disadvantage to any group. Processes are designed to be fair, efficient, cost-effective, and aligned with public service standards. The Employer stated it is committed to equal opportunities.

The Employer went through each of the recruitment and selection processes highlighted by the Worker.

The Worker applied for a Level 3 role in December 2022, selecting one regional office as his preferred location. Ranked 11th on the March 2023 panel, he was not appointed despite multiple vacancies, including three in the regional office. A subsequent 2024 competition excluded the regional office due to pending workforce planning decisions. No regional-based appointments have been made from either panel to date.

The Worker lodged a formal grievance with the Employer in June 2024, citing concerns related to recruitment and location preference. A grievance meeting was held in August 2024, where the Worker was represented by a trade union. Meeting notes were later disputed by the Worker, who submitted amendments that were partially rejected due to discrepancies. The grievance outcome was subsequently issued.

Following the initial grievance outcome issued in September 2024, the Worker appealed the decision, citing inaccuracies in the meeting notes and findings. The appeal was heard in November 2024 by a senior manager, with union representation present. The Worker raised concerns regarding the decision-making process for Level 3 post locations. Notes from the appeal meeting were later shared and commented on by the Worker.

The Employer relied upon a WRC Recommendation IR-SC-00003222 which was based on similar facts.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Having carefully reviewed the Worker’s grievance document dated 13 June 2024, wherein he states that he wishes to seek a review of the decision-making process regarding how the 2024 panel was filled, it is noted that any information or review is limited to his own application only, and not to the entire process. Separate channels are available under the Recruitment and Selection Policy for concerns relating to the overall process.

His reference to the open, accountable, and transparent approach outlined in the Recruitment and Selection Policy under the Code of Practice is limited to providing feedback to individual candidates who request it. The Code also states that regional panels will be formed where appropriate.

To ensure greater transparency at the application stage, candidates should be advised of the number of vacancies available in each office. This would enable applicants to make an informed choice from the outset of the application process.

It is not within the WRC’s remit to dictate when and where posts should be allocated by the Employer. This is entirely a matter for the Employer, based on its business needs and strategic objectives.

IR  - Recruitment Panels