Agricultural officers lose court action over redeployment claim

Two Department of Agriculture officers who took High Court action after being formally told in 2011 their posts were "surplus to requirements" have lost their claim they should have been redeployed as

assistant agriculture inspectors (AAIs).

Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said, while personally sympathetic to the position of Vincent Gormley and James Scott, he was obliged to find the department was entitled to conclude their qualifications were not equivalent to the degree in agricultural science deemed necessary for the post of AAI.

Mr Gormley and Mr Scott, both with addresses in Co Galway, were employed by the department as technical agricultural officers since 1998 and 2001 respectively. Both hold BScs in rural development and Mr Scott has a masters degree in rural environmental conservation and management.

In an affidavit, Mr Gormley argued, under the Croke Park Agreement, redeployment took precedence over recruitment, transfers and promotions unless special skills were required. The Public Appointments Service should have been notified he and Mr Scott were available for redeployment but was not, he alleged.

In late 2012, the department publicly advertised for AAIs and stipulated candidates must hold a first or second class honours degree in agricultural science or equivalent qualification.

Rejected

Both men’s applications for the posts were rejected on grounds they did not satisfy the “essential requirements” as outlined in the application form. In challenging that decision, the men claimed they have the necessary qualifications and should have been redeployed or appointed as AAIs.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Hogan said the department’s rejection of their applications could not be regarded as unreasonable. He considered the men were given reasons for the rejection but added it might “possibly have been more helpful” if the department had more fully explained to them its views on the status of their qualifications.