Case Number: ADJ-00021540. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00021540
• Date: 10 December 2019
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: An Employee v A Public Transport Provider

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following 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 evidence relevant to the dispute. This hearing was held, with the agreement of all parties, in tandem with ADJ-0001538, , involving the same employer and where the same relevant set of facts and issues in dispute pertained.

Background:

This is a dispute between an employee of a public transport provider regarding his unsuccessful application for a promotion position. He claims he was treated unfairly both in the manner of the filling of a promotional position as well in the follow-up procedures, where he claims he was not given proper feedback nor allowed to utilise the grievance procedure. The Respondent claims that the selection process for the promotion positions were carried out in a fair and consistent manner.

Summary of Worker’s Case:

The worker is an unsuccessful candidate for promotion in the company. He submits that he had more than the requisite attributes for the job in that he had previously been an acting supervisor. He has the required computer literacy skills, an intimate knowledge of the company’s operational procedures and a third level degree. When he was informed he didn’t get the position, he sought to appeal the decision but the employer refused to facilitate him. However, he was told he could apply for a feedback session. When he presented himself for this feedback session he submits that the employer refused to allow him ask questions regarding the process and outcome. He also enquired of the employer as how to pursue a grievance on his issue but was refused the right to do so. The worker also put in a data request seeking his interview notes but was told that they had disappeared. In parallel with the above dispute the worker made a complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 regarding issues with local management. The worker claims that in the latter process internal auditors found significant shortcomings in relation to the implementation of HR procedures and the application of GDPR requirements. In conclusion, the worker submits that he had a legitimate expectation that the selection process and follow-up procedures would be transparent, fair and equitable but that was not his experience and he was therefore denied natural justice and fairness.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

A national competition was held for specialised supervisory positions in the company. Twelve internal candidates from an initial pool of thirty-four candidates were selected for interview. The employer submits that a standard...