Background:
The Worker commenced her employment with the Employer on August 17, 2015. After applying for a supervisor position in October 2021, she successfully secured a place 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 licence, which was allegedly against the role's requirements. She contested this decision, arguing that it was unfair, as a colleague with similar penalty points was subsequently offered the role. While the Worker acknowledged that the job advertisement specified the need for an unendorsed licence, there was no indication of a penalty points threshold or a clear definition of what constituted an unendorsed licence. She further claimed that following her removal from the panel, a colleague who was ranked lower on the panel and also had penalty points was offered the role.

The Employer stated that an unendorsed driver's license was a requirement for the role the Worker applied for. Upon requesting a statement from the National Driving Licence Service, it became clear that the Worker had eight penalty points on her licence. Since the role required a licence with no penalty points, an email was sent to the Worker on March 25, 2022, retracting the offer. The Worker appealed this decision on March 31, 2022, but was informed on May 11, 2022, that her appeal was unsuccessful.

Finding:
The Adjudicating Officer highlighted significant inconsistencies in the Employer's position regarding the job requirements for the role the Worker applied for. Initially, the Employer's representatives and recruitment department stated that the job advertisement specified that applicants could not have endorsements (penalty points) on their driver's licence. This led to the Worker being removed from the panel due to having eight penalty points. However, it was noted that a colleague with three penalty points was offered the role, which contradicted the Employer's stated requirements. The National Director of Human Resources later clarified in an email that applications would not be accepted from candidates with more than six penalty points. This explanation was provided only after the Worker queried why her colleague was successful despite having penalty points. This clarification was inconsistent with the prior stance taken by the Employer's representatives, recruitment department, and Appeals Officer.

The decision found that the Worker was unfairly treated because:

• The job advertisement did not clearly define what constituted an endorsement.
• Even if penalty points were considered endorsements, it did not explain why the Worker’s colleague with penalty points was offered the role.
• The explanation from the National Director of Human Resources was inconsistent with other positions held by the Employer's representatives.

Therefore, the Worker should have been offered the job over her colleague.

Practical Guidance for Employers:
Employers should ensure job advertisements clearly outline all role requirements, including specific definitions for any terms such as "unendorsed licence." It's crucial to maintain consistency and transparency in the selection process and criteria. If policies change, communicate them promptly and uniformly. Ensure all departments involved in recruitment are aligned on these policies to avoid misunderstandings and ensure fair treatment of all candidates. Regularly review and update job requirements to reflect current standards and practices accurately. This helps prevent disputes and ensures a fair selection process.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/july/ir-sc-00001992.html