Summary Sentence:

The Adjudication Officer expressed the view that when a job description requires a qualification “or equivalent”, the term “or equivalent” is a nebulous concept that does not provide for transparency or consistency and should be explained with examples of what is considered equivalent.

Background:

TheWorker commenced employment with the Employer in May 2008 and applied for a promotion in July 2021. At the time, the Worker did not hold a qualification required by the job specification for the promotion, and as a result, the Employer did not consider the Worker for this role. It later transpired that another employee also did not have that qualification and was considered. The Employer said this discrepancy was due to that employee holding a qualification which they considered “equivalent”, and that the job specification required the qualification “or equivalent.” The Worker states the other employee had received unjust preferential treatment which resulted in unfair treatment to the Worker.

Outcome:

The Adjudication Officer, in their non-binding recommendation under the Industrial Relations Act, noted that the provision which included the term “or equivalent” was the root cause of the dispute in question. The Adjudication Officer did not recommend the simple appointment of the Worker to the new position outside of the agreed processes, but recommended that any future job postings be altered to include examples of what kinds of qualifications would be considered “equivalent” to the qualification stated.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

It may be tempting to allow oneself leeway by stating a requirement to provide a qualification “or equivalent”, but doing so without more specificity may lead to an allegation that the job description was not objective and gave rise to unfairness.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/march/ir-sc-00001895.html