LCR22701

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s) ADJ-00036853, CA-00048039.

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 3 October 2022 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 26 August 2022 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a Recommendation in relation to the dispute. Regarding the claim for time in lieu for hours worked which were agreed as 225 hours, payment of that amount, calculated at the rate of pay it was worked plus a sum of €1000 in compensation to be made within four weeks of the date of the acceptance of the recommendation by the worker in settlement of this element of the dispute.

Regarding the extension of the GM panel to one of two years and the filling of the post from that extended panel, it is recommended that through her union, the worker accept that the matter is now closed and she is no longer is dispute concerning that element of the dispute.’’

A Labour Court hearing took place on 9 December 2022.

Summary of Worker arguments

1. The Employer failed to pay the Worker for 225 hours time-off-in-lieu worked by her before she moved to a different Hospital Group. The Adjudication Officer recommended that she be paid at the rate applicable at the time concerned rather than at the current rate. Compensation of €1000 was awarded also. The Adjudication Officer found that the actions of the Employer were ‘not acceptable treatment’. Therefore, the Worker is seeking payment at the current value of the hours concerned.

2. In addition, the Employer failed to follow its own policies and procedures by filling a vacant Head of Service post from a General Manager panel. This deprived the Worker of a promotion opportunity.

3. The employer claims that a General Manager panel was extended but has produced no evidence to show this.

4. It is the Employer’s own policy and in keeping with CPSA codes of practice that the filling of the post concerned would have been done by competition.

5. The lack of competition closed off an opportunity for the Worker who had worked at deputy level in that hospital and another hospital also.

1. The Employer accepts the finding of the Adjudication Officer and is ready to pay the €1000 awarded for the delay in paying for hours worked.

2. The Employer notes the comments of the Adjudication Officer regarding the recruitment issue. It is accepted in hindsight that a separate competition could have been convened.

3. The Employer does not accept that the appointment had any material impact on the Worker. If she was to be deemed as affected then all who could have applied could make the same claim.

4. The decision to extend the panel arose in the pandemic and was based on the difficulties at that time.

5. The position concerned is now filled.

The Employer has acknowledged its failure to pay the Worker money that was properly owed to her. The Employer has also acknowledged that, in hindsight, it would have been preferable to have advertised the post in question rather than use an existing panel, albeit the Employer has explained the context in which the decision was taken.

In the circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that compensation of €2500 be paid by the Employer to the Worker. The Court recommends further that payment for the 225 hours worked by the Worker should be paid to her at the rate that applied at the time when she worked those hours.

For reasons discussed at the hearing, the Employer should seek to find a means to pay this money through the payroll system of the Employer who is party to these proceedings, rather than through the payroll of the Worker’s existing employment.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Tom Geraghty
TH	______________________
4 January 2023	Deputy Chairman