By Gordon Deegan
The Labour Court has recommended that Teagasc pay a staff member €3,000 due to concerns he has over how the state agency handled a job promotion.
In its recommendation, Labour Court chairman, Kevin Foley stated that the court is unable to agree with the worker – who didn’t get the job – that the outcome of the competition at issue was unfair to him.
Foley stated that the court does note however that the worker “has been extremely concerned at his experience in the competition”.
Foley stated that the court notes the very long service of the worker and for this reason recommends that Teagasc should, as a gesture of goodwill made in the interest of good industrial relations, make a payment of €3,000 in full and final settlement of this trade dispute.
Teagasc, the agriculture and food development authority, is the national body providing integrated research, advisory and training services to the agriculture and food industry and rural communities.
The Labour Court recommendation upholds an earlier WRC recommendation that Teagasc pay the worker €3,000.
In his case, the worker was very concerned that the procedures put in place for the conduct of a promotional competition were not followed correctly.
He was concerned that a failure in this regard has affected his candidacy and was also concerned that a rating awarded to him by his Head of Department (HOD) may have been unfair.
However, Teagasc submitted that the outcome of the competition was not affected in any way to the detriment of the worker by any failure of procedure in the application process.
Foley stated that the Labour Court is unable to conclude that the interview board conducted itself in any manner other than correctly by reference to the procedure in place for the conduct of the competition.
Foley stated that neither it is open to the court to conclude that the rating given to him by his HOD was other than the genuine and properly formed view of the HOD.