Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the commitment of all members of the Defence Forces and the commitment of Óglaigh na hÉireann.

As the Senator will be aware, this case involves the submission by a former officer of the Permanent Defence Forces to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. The submission was in the form of an appeal from redress of wrongs made under section 114 of the Defence Act 1954, on foot of the considered findings of the Chief of Staff that the complainant had not been wronged in the view of the Defence Forces.

The complaint was made to the ombudsman's office on the 18 February 2013. The complainant alleges that he was wronged by an administrative error in a promotion competition held in 2012 and as a consequence, he was not promoted to the next higher rank with consequential implications relating to retirement on age grounds, gratuity and pension entitlement. By way of background, it should be noted that changes were introduced to the 2011 promotion scheme for officers which was held in March 2012. These changes were introduced following detailed negotiation and agreement with the Representative Association for Commissioned Officers under Conciliation and Council Report No. 447, CCR 447. This agreement, signed by both management and staff representatives, set out revised arrangements to be applied in respect of the application of length of service marks. A key objective in concluding this agreement was the introduction of objective assessment for promotion on merit and the elimination of seniority as a primary basis for officer promotions.

Changes in terms and conditions and procedural arrangements, having been agreed at conciliation council, are then transposed into the standing administrative instructions issued by the Chief of Staff. As will be appreciated by Senators, the transposition of such agreed arrangements through the industrial relations process into administrative arrangements can take time. Nevertheless, it is the agreement reached through the conciliation and arbitration process which must take precedence.

In this case, the relevant accompanying Defence Forces administrative instructions had not been updated at the time of the competition. While this may be a cause of concern, it is not without precedence. However, I can reasonably say that the revised arrangements under CCR 447 were well signalled to all members of the Defence Forces and well in advance of the promotion competition.

In his final report, the ombudsman concluded that the promotion competition process was administered in a procedurally unfair manner as, in his view, there was ambiguity in relation to the provisions regarding length of service marks. In addition to his findings, the ombudsman made a range of recommendations arising from this case.

The recommendations of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces are under active consideration. I am advised that the matter may require obtaining advices from the Office of the Attorney General before any decision on the matter can be made and the issue of such advice is also under active consideration. In the light of the above, the House will appreciate, it would be not appropriate for me to comment further on this particular case at this point in time.