Man fails in case against Cork council over job he wasn't offered

A man has failed in a bid to take a case against Cork City Council after claiming he was denied the opportunity to compete for a job he was never offered.

The Labour Court heard that the man, described only as “the worker”, was placed 13th on a panel formed following a 2022 competition for the role of assistant general foreman.

The deadline was set as September 30, 2024.

The court was told that progress in making appointments from the panel was delayed, because the HR official handling the process was absent on compassionate leave.

In late August 2024, the incumbent foreman handed in his notice of retirement, confirming he planned to leave his role on December 14, 2024. He also sought to take approximately 22 days of accrued annual leave in a single block before departing.

On September 2, 2024, council management sought approval from HR to fill the upcoming vacancy early from the existing panel. That approval was granted, and the process of offering the role to the next eligible candidate — who was sixth on the panel — began.

However, because the HR official dealing with the matter remained on compassionate leave, the appointment was not finalised until October 23, 2024. By then, the panel had expired.

According to the Labour Court, the worker was “aggrieved and felt he had been denied the opportunity to compete for the vacant position”. He sought compensation of approximately €10,000 for what he described as a “loss of opportunity”.

In its ruling on April 8, the Labour Court said: “The court accepts an unfortunate sequence of events led to a departure from established good practice in relation to the timing of the disputed appointment in this case.

“However, it is not in dispute that the sanction to make the appointment was granted when the panel was still extant and the appointment would — in the normal course — have been formalised prior to the dissolution of the panel.

“In the circumstances and having regard to the worker’s placement on the panel, the court does not recommend concession of the worker’s claim for compensation.”