ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference:  IR - SC - 00004996

Parties:

Dispute:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Date of Hearing:              15/07/2026

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The Worker referred a dispute regarding the filling of an Assistant Principal post.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Worker submitted that he was referring the matter under the principles of fair procedure and natural justice in relation to a competition for an Assistant Principal position in a Public Service Organisation.

He served over 25 years with an unblemished record of commitment and delivery. Yet in this competition, he was subjected to a process that was compromised by conflicts of interest, strategic candidate placements, procedural mismanagement, and a scoring outcome that is fundamentally at odds with the evidence of his application and presentation.

His original complaint was that the Employer along with the Public Services Appointments Commission failed to ensure a fair, transparent, and impartial competition.  The original referral contained issues under the following headings:

Breach of Fair Procedure & Natural Justice

Procedural Mismanagement of a request for Review

Substantive Evidence Ignored

Silence & Obstruction

His original request was that the WRC should find that the process was fundamentally flawed and provide redress in the form of compensation and any other remedy as deemed just and equitable.

The Worker then provided a supplemental submission which confirmed that he was not seeking WRC to overturn the decision of the panel.  He stated as follows:

The issue before the Commission is not the interview outcome, the scoring awarded by the interview board, or whether the Commission should substitute its judgment for that of the competition panel. The issue is whether the Section 7 safeguard provided for under the Commission for Public Service Appointments (CPSA) Code of Practice operated in a manner that was transparent, procedurally fair, and capable of independent verification.

The issue before the Commission is not whether the original interview board reached the correct decision, nor whether the interview scores awarded to the Complainant should be revisited. The issue before the Commission is whether the Section 7 review process conducted under the CPSA Code of Practice can be demonstrated to have operated in accordance with the requirements of Rules 7.2.5 and 7.2.6 of that Code. In particular, the Commission is asked to determine:

• Whether the review outcome provides the detailed information required by Rule 7.2.5 of the CPSA Code of Practice;
• Whether a sufficient documentary record exists to demonstrate how the review was conducted, what information was taken into account, and the basis upon which the review conclusions were reached;
• Whether the available documentary record is capable of allowing the Section 7 review process to be independently understood and verified by a third party. The Complainant respectfully submits that these questions arise directly from the documentary record now available following the Freedom of Information process, Internal Review, Office of the Information Commissioner decision, and subsequent release of records by the Employer. The Commission is therefore asked to determine whether the Section 7 safeguard operated in a transparent, accountable, and procedurally fair manner in accordance with the requirements of the CPSA Code of Practice.

The Complainant does not seek a re-marking of the competition, a reassessment of interview scores, or any alteration to appointments made arising from the competition. The primary purpose of this complaint is to obtain clarity as to whether the Section 7 safeguard operated in accordance with the standards of transparency, accountability, and procedural fairness required by the CPSA Code of Practice. Should the Commission determine that the Section 7 review process did not operate in accordance with those standards, the Complainant respectfully requests that the Commission consider such redress as it deems appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. The Complainant further hopes that any findings made by the Commission may assist in improving the operation, transparency, and accountability of future Section 7 review processes.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Respondent held a recruitment process for an Assistant Principal in May 2025. The Complainant was one of several candidates who applied for the position and interviews were held on 26 May 2025.

Preliminary Issue

It is well established that before referring a grievance about any matter to the WRC an employee must exhaust the internal procedures at their workplace. In Gregory Geoghegan trading as TAPS v. A Worker INT1014 the Labour Court held:

“The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural process in a situation where the dispute procedures have been bypassed.”

In An Employee v An Employer (IR - SC – 00003791), a case which also related to an unsuccessful recruitment process, the Adjudication Officer concluded

"During the hearing, it was noted that the parties agreed that a further investigation under the complaint procedure in section 8 of the Commission for Public Service Appointments (CPSA) Code of Practice – Section 8 Making a complaint - was available to the Worker and that that procedure can be commenced. It was also noted that the parties agreed that in tandem the Worker can invoke and exhaust the Employer’s internal grievance procedure. I conclude that as the internal procedures have not been exhausted I cannot insert myself into the procedural process. In the circumstances, I conclude that the Worker’s dispute is not well founded."

In this case the Complainant confirms in his submission that a Section 8 review under the CPSA Review Procedures is ongoing and therefore that procedure has not been completed. Further the Complainant has not invoked the Respondent's Grievance procedures, which was flagged as being an appropriate means of addressing his concerns regarding the recruitment process.

In the initial submission, the Employer addressed the substantive issues raised by the Worker regarding his various objections to the composition of the interview panel an example was given:

All of the members of the Interview Panel were required to sign Confidentiality Agreements and adhere to the Conflict of Interest guidelines. Two of the members were internal appointments and a third member was external to the Respondent. The Complainant subsequently raised a further concern with the Resourcing Manager regarding named candidates' roles taking notes at Senior Management meetings. In the Complainant's view this role raised concerns about their proximity to decision-makers and access to sensitive information and he repeated his request for the Respondent to convene an interview panel composed entirely of individuals who are independent of the Employer. This request was refused and the Complainant was informed that it was inappropriate to refer to any potential candidate regarding the competition. Again he was reminded that the Grievance Procedure would be the most appropriate means of addressing his concerns and

Outcome

The Complainant was unsuccessful in his application and placed last by the Interview Panel and he has included his marks with his submission. The Complainant has submitted "independent" marks prepared by two separate AI, Grok and ChatGPT, however it is submitted that these scores are meaningless without comparators and detailed background information regarding the role, the skills required or the interview panel's marking criteria.

Section 7 Review

The Complainant subsequently submitted a review in accordance with Section 7 of the Code of Practice for Appointment to Positions in the Civil and Public Service. The Complainant submitted an 11 page request for a review which he included with his claim form to the WRC. The request for review addresses the points that he has raised with the WRC. The role of the Reviewer is set out in paragraph 7.2.3 of the Code of Practice and it states that

"The role of the formal reviewer is not to reassess or remark the candidate, but rather to establish, on foot of the available information, whether they consider:

• The procedures set out for the selection process were followed correctly
• The original decision was made on the basis of correct and full information
• The original decision was made appropriately"

The appointed Reviewer concluded in July 2025 that the selection process was "carried out appropriately in accordance with the documented procedures and the original outcome was appropriate." She confirmed that before she had examined the Complainant's written submission, recruitment process, interview board document and emails between the Complainant and the Respondent.

The Reviewer found that the selection process for the Competition was carried out appropriately.

Industrial Relations Acts

The WRC has consistently held that it will not interfere with the decision of an employer’s recruitment or promotional process when there is no evidence of unfairness, irregularity or irrational behaviour.

In A University v. A Worker CD/16/143, LRC21333 the Labour Court stated that:

 “The Court has consistently adopted the position that it does not substitute its decision for that of an employer’s recruitment or promotional panel regarding the merits of a candidate... the Court can only look behind a decision in relation to appointment where there is clear evidence of unfairness in the selection process or manifest irrationality in the result.”

Similarly in University of Limerick v. A Worker, LRC 21339 the Labour Court stated:

“In dealing with similar disputes in the past the Court has taken the view that in the absence of irregularity in the conduct of the promotion process, or manifest irrationality in the result, the Court cannot seek to re-run the process and substitute its views on the merits of the applicants for those of the Promotions Board, or make a comparative analysis of their work.”

And again in An Employee v A Health Service Provider ADJ-00036138 the Adjudication Officer stated that

"it is not within the remit of an Adjudication Officer to substitute their view on the merits of the applicants or make a comparative analysis of their applications. The only issue that is within the competence of an Adjudication Officer is to examine whether some clear procedural unfairness or manifest irrationality in the result may have been present in the process that could have resulted in an injustice to the Worker."

Summary

In this case, the procedures adopted were fair and reasonable. A candidate booklet was provided to each candidate, the Complainant raised concerns regarding a member of the panel in advance of interview and the member concerned was replaced in advance of interviews He was interviewed by a panel consisting of two internal and one external appointee. The Complainant requested a review of the decision and that Review considered the concerns that he raised in his comprehensive request. The Complainant has an ongoing Section 8 review and has not availed of established Grievance Procedures. It is submitted that there was no procedural unfairness or manifest irrationality in this case and accordingly no recommendation is appropriate.

Following the first hearing, the Employer provided a supplemental submission as follows:

The Claimant filed a second submission dated 22nd June 2026 which advances a very different claim from his previous submission. It appears that the issues that he wants addressed are much narrower than those canvassed in his earlier submission, although it is not clear whether the issues outlined in his earlier submission remain "live". The Claimant has helpfully set out the issues to be determined in Section 6 of his Supplemental Submission, which is set out in full below:

6. Question for Determination

The issue before the Commission is not whether the original interview board reached the correct decision, nor whether the interview scores awarded to the Complainant should be revisited. The issue before the Commission is whether the Section 7 review process conducted under the CPSA Code of Practice can be demonstrated to have operated in accordance with the requirements of Rules 7.2.5 and 7.2.6 of that Code.

In particular, the Commission is asked to determine:

• Whether the review outcome provides the detailed information required by Rule 7.2.5 of the CPSA Code of Practice;
• Whether a sufficient documentary record exists to demonstrate how the review was conducted, what information was taken into account, and the basis upon which the review conclusions were reached;
• Whether the available documentary record is capable of allowing the Section 7 review process to be independently understood and verified by a third party.

The Complainant respectfully submits that these questions arise directly from the documentary record now available following the Freedom of Information process, Internal Review, Office of the Information Commissioner decision, and subsequent release of records by Tailte Éireann. The Commission is therefore asked to determine whether the Section 7 safeguard operated in a transparent, accountable, and procedurally fair manner in accordance with the requirements of the CPSA Code of Practice.

CPSA Code of Practice

The Code of Practice sets out the principles and standards that must be adhered to at each stage of the selection process and Section 7 of the Code sets out the review and appeal mechanisms open to candidates, where they are unhappy with a selection process.

The Code explains that the role of the reviewer is to determine whether they consider the original decision was made appropriately, on the basis of correct information and in line with documented procedure.

Section 7.2.5 states that the formal review decision should be issued in writing and supported by detailed information outlining:

• The basis of the review request
• How the review process was carried out
• All relevant information taken into account
• The formal decision
• The basis on which the decision was reached Section 7.2.5 of the Code also states that

"The reviewer’s decision will be considered by the administrators of the selection process in the first instance. Where a formal reviewer has decided not to uphold the original decision, a decision must be made by the HR unit on appropriate next steps. The reviewer’s decision is final with no further recourse to review from the Office Holder." (emphasis added) The Claimant requested a review of the decision. A copy of the Reviewer's decision was reproduced in its complete form in the Employer’s supplemental submission document and clearly meets each of the requirements set out in Section 7.2.5.

Conclusions:

The Worker in this case made substantial, detailed and complex arguments and submissions.  His original complaint was that the Employer along with the Public Services Appointments Commission failed to ensure a fair, transparent, and impartial competition.  He then submitted that the Employer failed to follow correct procedures for the review of the panel decision or that the review was somewhat flawed or potentially flawed.  Specifically he questioned whether the code of practice governing the review was followed in a proper manner.  He drew attention to the provision that the review should be issued in writing, supported by detailed information outlining the basis for the review request, how the review process was carried out and all relevant information taken into account.  I note he seeks not to ‘review the review’ but whether correct and transparent procedures were followed. He states that, due to a lack of information, he is unsure of how the Reviewer reached outcomes.  I note that the role of the Reviewer is set out in paragraph 7.2.3 of the Code of Practice and that the Reviewer concluded that the original outcome was appropriate. I note that section 7.2.5 of the code states that the reviewer’s decision is final.  I note that the procedures have not been fully exhausted in that at the time of hearing, there a complaint under Section 8 review was not heard.  It is well established that the Labour Court does not insert itself into procedural process where internal procedures have been bypassed.  For the reasons that internal procedures have not been exhausted and where I have no role in reviewing a completed internal review, I do not find in the Worker’s favour in this case.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

For the reasons and conclusions outlined above, I do not find in the Worker’s favour.

Dated:  17th of September 2026.  

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: