Complainant awarded €5,000 for inconsistent and transparent recruitment process
Key Learnings:
Employers should ensure that job advertisements clearly define all role requirements, including specific terms such as “unendorsed licence.” It is crucial to maintain consistency and transparency in the selection process and criteria. Any changes in policies must be communicated promptly and uniformly. All departments involved in recruitment need to be aligned on these policies to avoid misunderstandings and ensure fair treatment of all candidates. Regular reviews and updates of job requirements are necessary to accurately reflect current standards and practices. This approach helps prevent disputes and ensures a fair selection process.
Background:
The Worker began working for the Employer on August 17, 2015. She applied for a supervisor position in October 2021 and was placed on the panel later that year. However, in March 2022, she was removed from the panel due to having penalty points on her driver’s license, which was claimed to be against the job requirements. She argued this was unfair, noting a colleague with similar penalty points was later offered the role. Although the job ad required an unendorsed license, it did not specify a penalty points limit or clearly define “unendorsed.” After her removal, a lower-ranked colleague with penalty points was given the position.
The Employer stated the role required an unendorsed driver’s license. Upon checking with the National Driving Licence Service, they found the Worker had eight penalty points. Since the role required applicants to have no penalty points on their driving license, the Respondent removed the Complainant from the shortlist of candidates on March 25, 2022. The Complainant appealed on March 31, 2022, but her appeal was denied on May 11, 2022.
Summary of Complainant ’s Case:
Although the Complainant acknowledged that the job advertisement specified that an unendorsed license was required for the role, it did not mention any threshold for the number of penalty points an applicant could have, nor did it clarify what constituted an unendorsed license. The Worker claimed that after she was removed from consideration, a colleague with penalty points on her license, who ranked lower on the panel, was offered the position.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Employer indicated that an unendorsed driver’s license was a mandatory requirement for the position the Worker applied for. Upon requesting a statement from the National Driving Licence service, it was revealed that the Worker had eight penalty points on her license. Since the role specifically required an unendorsed license, meaning no penalty points, the job offer was rescinded via email on March 25, 2022. The Worker appealed this decision on March 31, 2022, but was informed on May 11, 2022, that her appeal was unsuccessful.
Findings and Conclusions:
The Adjudicator considered all evidence submitted by both sides in this case. The Respondent’s position on job requirements was inconsistent.
Initially, the Respondent claimed the job required a clean driving license, and the Complainant was rejected due to penalty points (considered endorsements). Yet, a colleague with penalty points was hired for the same role.
Later, the Respondent’s HR Director stated the requirement was no more than six penalty points, contradicting previous statements. This explanation arose only after the Complainant questioned the colleague’s hiring.
This inconsistency and lack of clarity in the job posting unfairly disadvantaged the Complainant. She should have been offered the job over her colleague due to:
- Unclear definition of “endorsement” in the job posting.
- Inconsistent application of the penalty points rule.
- Contradictory explanation from HR, differing from the initial stance.
Therefore, the Adjudicator concluded the Complainant was unfairly treated.
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 required the Adjudicator to make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Considering all of the foregoing and noting that the Complainant had since obtained an alternative role, the Adjudicator recommend that the Respondent makes a payment to the Complainant in the sum of €5,000 in respect of the unfairness of the treatment and the effects of this treatment on her.
Complainant awarded €112,000 for unfair dismissal during redundancy process
Key Learnings:
To maintain fairness during redundancy, it’s crucial to openly communicate the selection criteria and process to everyone. This avoids any misunderstandings or feelings of unfair treatment. Use consistent and unbiased standards for skill assessments. Keep detailed records of the entire process, including the reasons behind each decision and any discussions with employees. Actively involve employees whose roles will be affected by the redundancy, by engaging them in meaningful consultation exploring all alternatives that may mitigate the risk of redundancy. Ensure that HR is involved to make sure the process is fair and follows legal requirements. Lastly, offer a clear and fair way for employees to appeal decisions, so everyone feels the process is impartial.
Background:
The Complainant, employed by an online education company since 2019, was selected for redundancy in December 2022 due to a global workforce reduction. She disputed the fairness of this decision, alleging bias and lack of transparency in the selection process. The Respondent argued that the redundancy process was fair, objective, and in line with legal requirements. They based their decision on a combination of past performance and competency-based interviews, aimed at selecting candidates who best matched the new leadership roles’ requirements. Despite efforts to find the Complainant alternative employment, no suitable role was available, and her employment was terminated in February 2023. The Respondent maintained that the dismissal was fair and that there was no evidence of a predetermined outcome.
Summary of Complainant ’s Case:
The respondent claimed their redundancy was unfair and predetermined. They argued that the selection process was manipulated to ensure their dismissal from a group of similar colleagues.
Initially employed in the Dublin Commercial team, the respondent was promoted to a global management role on the new Digital Sales SMB team in 2021, and further promoted to Director in 2022.
However, tensions arose between the Dublin and SMB teams over deal attribution, leaving the respondent feeling excluded. In December 2022, the SMB team was moved under the Dublin Commercial team, with the announcement that only 5 of the 8 leadership positions would remain.
The respondent claimed the redundancy selection process was unfair, lacked transparency and consultation. They argued the criteria, particularly the 80:20 weighting favouring past performance over interviews, was biased towards those already working under the Senior VP Commercial Sales EMEA.
Additionally, there was no interview feedback, unclear consistency in questioning, and no ranking information given. The consultation process offered no chance to challenge the decision. The respondent also claimed the interview itself was flawed, as they were unaware they were applying for all 5 roles, not just an SMB leadership position. The lack of HR involvement and transparency furthered concerns.
Minimal effort was made to find alternative solutions to redundancy, and the respondent’s financial loss continued at the time of the hearings.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
In December 2022, the respondent, an online education company, announced a global workforce reduction of approximately 20% due to economic uncertainty and the need to restructure for future growth. This decision aligned with the definition of redundancy as set out in section 7(2)(c) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. Among those impacted were eight managers in the Commercial and SMB function, including the complainant, a Dublin-based Director who had been promoted twice since joining the company in 2019.
The redundancy process involved notifying the affected employees, including the complainant, on December 12th, 2022. A selection process based on past performance and competency-based interviews was then initiated, with the Senior Vice President of Commercial Sales EMEA leading the process. Despite efforts to find the complainant alternative employment within the company, a suitable role could not be found. She was informed of her termination in January 2023, and she received all contractual and statutory entitlements, including redundancy pay, as per the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.
The respondent maintained that the redundancy was unavoidable due to significant economic challenges faced in 2022. They asserted that the selection process was fair, objective, and applied equally to all eight candidates. This process involved a combination of past performance (weighted at 20%) and competency-based interviews (weighted at 80%).
The respondent refuted the complainant’s allegations of bias and pre-determination in the process. They highlighted that the complainant’s manager, against whom the allegations were made, had actively supported her in seeking alternative employment within the company. Furthermore, the involvement of two interviewers in the selection process aimed to ensure objectivity and mitigate potential bias.
The respondent maintained that the dismissal was both substantially and procedurally fair, in line with the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. They disputed the complainant’s claim of unfair dismissal, emphasizing that the redundancy was genuine and the selection process was conducted in a transparent and impartial manner.
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant was dismissed due to redundancy. The respondent claimed this was justified under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2014. However, the complainant argued that their selection for redundancy was unfair.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found that the respondent’s decision to reduce staff constituted a genuine redundancy situation. However, the WRC was not satisfied with the fairness and objectivity of the selection process.
The complainant’s role was recently moved into the affected department before the redundancy process began. The selection criteria and their application raised concerns about potential bias, as the retained employees were previous direct reports of the manager involved in the selection. The complainant was not informed of the specific roles for which they were being assessed, and the interviewers had more knowledge of other candidates’ competencies than the complainant’s.
The WRC also found issues with the consultation process, deeming it insufficient and not a genuine attempt to explore alternatives to redundancy. The outcome letter was considered premature, and the complainant’s request for an extension to explore other roles was not adequately addressed.
Based on these findings, the WRC determined that the complainant was unfairly dismissed.
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015 required the Adjudicator to make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
The complainant was awarded €112,000 in compensation for their financial loss resulting from the dismissal. This amount takes into account the complainant’s efforts to mitigate their loss, including a period of alternative employment, and a reduction for a period where the WRC deemed the complainant’s efforts to find new employment to be insufficient.