Worker claims she's most qualified out of shortlisted candidates
The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission recently dealt with the case of a veteran employee who said she has been consistently overlooked for a promotion, even though she had all the experience and skills required for the role. She said the selection process was flawed, adding that there existed a “workplace bias” against her.
Nicole Williams was employed as an administration officer (labeled as an "AO2" post) at Woodford Correctional Centre (WCC) under the State of Queensland. She appealed a promotion decision in a recruitment process for two permanent administration officer (AO3) roles.
The said roles were advertised on the Queensland Government website. Applications for both AO3 positions were shortlisted, and interviews were conducted by a panel.
According to records, Williams was among the shortlisted candidates and was interviewed for both roles on August 16, 2023. The panel identified two other candidates as best suited for the positions based on merit.
A selection report, detailing the panel's strategies and decisions, was approved by the acting chief superintendent of WCC, on September 22, 2023.
Williams, notified of her unsuccessful application on October 16, 2023, subsequently requested feedback. In a meeting on the same date, she was advised to elaborate more on her responses to questions, particularly those related to risk and impacts when making decisions.
'Discrepancies' in the selection process
Williams filed her appeal on November 1, 2023, citing her 17 years of service, her extensive experience, and her belief that she has been overlooked for the said roles.
She expressed dissatisfaction with the selection process outcomes, highlighting discrepancies in experience among successful candidates. Williams argued that her professionalism merits a chance to prove her suitability for a permanent administrative officer role.
Meanwhile, the employer said that Williams "has not clearly articulated or identified any failings made by [them] in the recruitment and selection process."
It said that "instead, it appeared to [them] that Williams [sought] to better understand the outcome of the recruitment and selection process."
Worker alleged 'bias' against her
The worker argued that "she has been unsuccessful in many attempts to obtain an AO3 position despite having extensive experience relieving in AO3 positions without issue."
"There is a bias existing in the workplace towards me," she added, saying that the panel members consisted of her peers at WCC. She further expressed dissatisfaction with the feedback she received regarding her performance at her interview.
"Not everyone is gifted with interviewing ability, and it seems that performance on the job is not considered sufficient to impress a selection panel at Woodford Correctional Centre," she said.
Review of the selection process
The Commission said that after it had “reviewed the Selection Report in its totality,” it found “detailed notes recorded for all candidates which indicate that each candidate was asked the same four questions and was allocated an overall score before the panel made a determination as to whether each candidate was suitable for the role.”
“The Comparative Assessment is also detailed and clearly identifies the reasons why each of the four suitable candidates is recommended, including why they have been rated at either first, second, third or fourth most suitable candidate,” it said.
“While Williams may have a personal view that she should have been more highly rated compared to other candidates, she has been unable to identify or provide evidence of any deficiency in the recruitment and selection process,” it added.
‘Seek a meeting with supervisor’
The Commission said that it “understood” that “Williams is frustrated that she has been unsuccessful in many attempts to obtain an AO3 position despite her extensive experience relieving in such positions.”
“It may be useful for [her] to seek a meeting with her supervisor or the most appropriate person, to discuss any avenues which may be available to her to further develop her interview skills and to address any matters which were contained in the feedback she received,” it said.
As for her allegation of bias, the Commission said that “while Williams believes she has ‘upset someone at Woodford Correctional Centre’, that ‘there is bias in the workplace existing towards me’ and that the panel was biased towards her, she has not produced any evidence whatsoever to this effect.”
“It is not unusual for panels to consist of people from the same workplace as applicants, and it is for this reason, in part, that the panel is required to consider potential conflicts, declare these, and if necessary, put mitigations or strategies in place.”
However, the Commission said it was “satisfied that the panel has complied with the requirements of the legislation and the directive.” Consequently, it said it was “unable to identify any deficiency in the recruitment and selection process.” It then confirmed the decision of the employer to promote its successful candidates.
