Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Clerical Worker

Health Service Provider

Representatives

Diarmuid Long SIPTU

In-House HR

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 - 00005639

11/11/2025

Background

The Worker has been employed since September 2004. Having worked for many years at a location, she transferred to a location nearer home in June 2023 as a Clerical Officer Grade III attached to a relief panel. In that capacity she was assigned to various administrative locations within the hospital depending on service requirements. Her fortnightly salary was €1856.80 gross: net €1374.30.

In September 2024, an Expression of Interest ("EOI") process was initiated in respect of a permanent Clerical Officer Grade III position on the Main Reception/Switchboard. The Worker applied for the position but was informed on 25 September 2024 that her application had been unsuccessful. Dissatisfied with both the outcome and the manner in which the process had been conducted, she raised a formal grievance.

The grievance proceeded through the Employer’s grievance procedure. While the grievance was ultimately not upheld, a number of actions were identified following the Stage 2 hearing, including a review of the EOI process, consultation with trade unions regarding future arrangements, and an apology to the Worker for delays in the handling of her grievance.

The matter was subsequently referred to the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 where the Worker is seeking recognition of the alleged unfair treatment she received, as well as compensation.  

Worker's Case

The Worker submitted that she had extensive experience as a Clerical Officer and had already been performing duties on the Switchboard/Reception. She maintained that she had previously been selected ahead of another candidate for a maternity leave assignment in the same area and was therefore surprised and disappointed when she was subsequently deemed unsuitable for the permanent position.

The Worker contended that the selection process lacked transparency and procedural fairness. She stated that no interview process was conducted. Rather, interested candidates were simply invited to submit expressions of interest, following which a selection was made by management. She submitted that she was given no meaningful explanation as to why she had been unsuccessful and no opportunity to demonstrate her suitability for the position.

The Worker further submitted that she repeatedly sought feedback but received only a brief explanation that skills and experience had been considered. She argued that such a response was wholly inadequate, particularly given that she was already carrying out the work at the time and had significant service.

The Worker also expressed concern that she had effectively been denied any meaningful opportunity to challenge the decision. During the hearing she stated that the successful candidate had been appointed before her grievance process had concluded, thereby rendering any appeal largely academic.

The Worker was critical of the grievance procedure. She submitted that the process was subject to substantial delays which were entirely inconsistent with the timescales set out in the Employer's own Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures. She stated that the grievance remained unresolved for many months and that this prolonged process caused her considerable frustration and upset.

Through her representative, the Worker also highlighted what was said to be an inconsistency within the Stage 2 grievance outcome. While the grievance was not upheld and the process was described as having been appropriately utilised, the outcome simultaneously recommended that the process be reviewed and agreed in consultation with the trade unions. The Worker argued that these findings were difficult to reconcile and supported her contention that there were shortcomings in the original process.

The Worker submitted that she had been treated unfairly and sought recognition of that fact together with an appropriate compensatory recommendation.

The Employer submitted that the Worker transferred to a location in June 2023 as a relief Clerical Officer Grade III and remained employed in that capacity. It maintained that assignments arising within the hospital were allocated through an EOI process which was distinct from formal promotional competitions.

The Employer submitted that the Worker applied for the Switchboard/Reception position through the established EOI process but was not considered the most suitable candidate on that occasion. It maintained that the process had been consistently utilised within the hospital and that the selection was made in accordance with management's assessment of operational requirements and suitability.

The Employer emphasised that the position in question arose within the context of relief panel arrangements and was not equivalent to a formal promotional competition. It submitted that permanent promotional positions are generally filled through separate recruitment processes involving regional or national panels.

The Employer acknowledged that delays occurred during the grievance procedure. It noted that an apology had been issued to the Worker in respect of those delays and submitted that management had taken steps to review and improve the EOI process going forward. The Employer stated that consultation with trade unions had been undertaken following the grievance outcome and that lessons had been learned from the matter.

The Employer further submitted that the Stage 2 grievance hearing had been conducted independently and that all relevant information had been considered before a decision was reached.

While expressing regret for the delay in the grievance process, the Employer maintained that it had acted in good faith throughout and had attempted to address the concerns raised by the Worker.

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

I fully accept that it is not the role of an Adjudication Officer acting under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 to determine who should have been appointed to a particular position. Nor is it my function to substitute my judgment for that of management in relation to recruitment decisions. The issue before me is whether the process adopted and the treatment of the Worker were fair and reasonable. In that regard, I find that there were substantial deficiencies in the process.

There was no interview process whatsoever for the position. The evidence before me was that candidates merely submitted expressions of interest, and a decision was then made. While an employer retains discretion regarding recruitment methods, it is difficult to reconcile a process involving appointment to a permanent role with the complete absence of any structured assessment or interview. The absence of such a process inevitably undermines transparency and leaves unsuccessful candidates without any meaningful understanding of how a decision was reached.

The Worker was provided with little or no useful feedback following her unsuccessful application. The explanation that skills and experience had been considered was wholly insufficient in the circumstances. The Worker had been performing duties within the area and was entitled to a more meaningful explanation as to why another candidate had been preferred. The absence of feedback deprived her of any realistic opportunity to understand or improve her prospects for future opportunities.

 I am satisfied that the grievance procedure was subject to excessive and unexplained delay. The Employer candidly acknowledged that delays occurred and apologised to the Worker. However, the evidence demonstrates that the grievance process extended well beyond the timescales envisaged by the Employer's own procedures. Such delays undermine confidence in internal dispute resolution mechanisms and contributed significantly to the Worker’s sense of frustration and unfair treatment.

Finally, I attach significance to the fact that the Stage 2 grievance outcome recommended a review of the very process which was under challenge. While the grievance itself was not upheld, the recommendations for review and consultation with trade unions strongly suggest that management itself recognised shortcomings in the process. That recognition lends weight to the Worker’s contention that her concerns were not without foundation.

Taking all of these matters together, I am satisfied that the Worker was treated unfairly and unreasonably. While I cannot recommend that she be appointed to the position in question, I consider that compensation is warranted to acknowledge the deficiencies in the process and the distress and frustration caused to her.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.