Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Security Personnel

Security Force

Representatives

Mr. Dermot O Brien

Self-Represented

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 - 00003328

24/10/2024

On 24th October 2024, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that his employer failed to call him to an interview for a position that had become vacant in contravention of their internal procedures.

Following the Employer’s failure to object to the referral of this dispute within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 8th August 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing. This hearing was listed, and heard, in parallel to a dispute involving a separate Worker and the same Employer.

Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing. As the facts of the dispute are common to both matters, the same set of submissions were read in relation to both matters.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the disputes were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Worker stated that they returned from a period of illness in 2001. Upon their return, the established protocol regarding the resumption of duties was observed, resulting in the Worker being assigned to the department responsible for the issuing of summonses and letters of warrants. The Worker acknowledged that this particular role assisted their reintegration into the workplace and noted that the position was not formally advertised at that time. Subsequently, on 4th April 2024, the Employer advertised the role of warrants, summons, and firearms officer in accordance with the applicable circular. The application deadline was set for 26th April 2024, and the advertisement detailed the necessary skills and competencies. This position was intended for a six-month duration, with the possibility of an extension under certain circumstances.

The Worker asserted that they were already performing the duties of the advertised role at the time the vacancy was announced. They duly submitted an application for the position alongside one other colleague. The selection process, as defined in the expression of interest documentation, indicated that a shortlisting stage would occur if the number of applicants exceeded the available vacancies. Despite same, the Worker was not invited to attend an interview. Following the conclusion of the recruitment process, the Worker was informally advised on 16th May 2024 that both they and the other candidate were unsuccessful, and that an individual who had not applied for the role had been appointed.

Upon learning of this outcome, the Worker initiated a formal grievance through the Employer’s  internal procedures. In the subsequent outcome, the Employer claimed that a lack of human resources necessitated that the selection process be abandoned and that the duties in question were divided amongst three other colleagues. The Worker subsequently appealed the decision through internal channels, where it was conceded that best practice had not been maintained. No practical reason was offered to explain why the Worker was denied an interview despite there being only two candidates for the post.

The representative for the Worker highlighted the relevant circular and the associated code of practice which dictate the standards for internal competitions. It was submitted that when the Employer establishes such procedures, staff are entitled to expect that those procedures will be followed. The Worker contended that the Employer failed to adhere to the terms of the directive and deviated from the required standards. Consequently, the Worker seeks reinstatement to the position and requests that a new competition be conducted in strict alignment with the circular and the code of practice.

By way of submission, the Employer acknowledges that an invitation for expressions of interest regarding the position was advertised on 4th April 2024. They further accepted that the Worker submitted an application prior to this closing date. The Employer stated that the notification of 4th April 2024 clearly defined the process as an invitation for expressions of interest only and specified that any successful applicant would return to their previous role following the temporary six-month allocation period. Furthermore, the notification indicated that a successful applicant could be reassigned to alternative duties at the discretion of the Employer.

Regarding the allegations raised by the Worker, the Employer accepted that no interviews were conducted as the position itself was not filled and the campaign itself was abandoned. Instead, the duties associated with the role were distributed among other members of the workforce.

The Employer submitted that the 2012 guidelines referenced by the Worker are not applicable to this matter and that there was no requirement for an interview to be held. They argued that the notification of 4th April 2024 made no mention of an interview process and provided only for written applications. Additionally, the Employer stated that the code of practice for internal promotion applies only if the role involves increased remuneration and greater responsibility. They contended that the code does not apply to internal transfers or secondments.  They further submitted position in question fell into one of these categories as it did not involve higher pay or increased responsibility.

In any event, the Employer maintained that the 2012 guidelines and the code of practice could not reasonably require an Employer to proceed with a recruitment process if the decision was made not to fill the vacancy. They stated that as no selection process occurred, no unfair selection could have taken place. The Employer submitted that this outcome was communicated to the Worker both during the initial grievance stage and subsequently by a senior member of management upon appeal.

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

Regarding the present dispute, the Worker and his colleague have alleged that the Employer failed to conduct an interview for a position that had been advertised. He submitted that the role in question was seemingly awarded to a colleague without any process being followed in relation to the same. In this regard the Worker, through his representative, submitted that the Employer was in breach of the relevant circular and code of practice in relation to these matters. By response, the Employer stated that the process itself was abandoned prior to completion, and no interviews were called on this basis. They further submitted that the advertisement did not fall within the purview of the code of conduct cited by the Worker.

Regarding the initial point raised by the Employer, it is common case that a document outlining expressions of interest for the role was advertised in early 2024. Thereafter, the Worker and a colleague applied for the role. At this point, the parties could reasonably have expected to hear back from the Employer regarding the next stage of the process. As matters transpired, no such communication issued from the Employer, and it is apparent that the Worker was verbally informed by a colleague that the role had been assigned to another colleague. Following the communication, the Worker formed the view, not unreasonably, that the Employer’s internal process regarding such matters had been circumvented and that they were in breach of the relevant code of practice.

During the internal process, and again at the hearing, the Employer stated that they dd not simply award the role to another colleague without due process, rather they stated that they abandoned the competition altogether for operational reasons. While the Employer is correct in their assertion that they are entitled to cancel such campaigns on this basis, best practice would dictate that the applicant be informed of this outcome at the relevant time. The Employer’s failure in this respect directly led to the current situation, whereby the Worker form a suspicion that the duties in question were simply awarded to one of his colleagues for reasons unknown to him. In addition to the foregoing, it remains the case that even if the duties in question were distributed amongst the Worker’s colleagues, no such duties were assigned to him. This omission is all the more unusual given that the Worker had experience in the area, to the extent that he considered himself a suitable candidate for a secondment to the role.

Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the Employer acted unreasonably in failing to inform the Worker that the competition had ceased at the relevant time. I further find that this lack of transparency led to a situation whereby the Worker remains unsure as to the criteria used to distribute the tasks in question amongst the workforce.

Competition, Expression of Interest,