INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR5830/01/GF.
2. In November, 1999, following the national nurses strike it was agreed that a number of Clinical Nurse Manager 1 (CNM1) positions would be introduced. Subsequently, a circular issued regarding the implementation of the CNM1 arrangements in the psychiatric and mentally handicap services. The allocation for the hospital concerned was three posts and the closing date for application was the 30th of August, 2000.
The worker concerned applied for the post prior to the 30th of August, 2000, along with one other nurse. Two further nurses applied for the post five months after the closing date and were successful.
The Union claims that its member complied with the guidelines for application and should now be appointed as CNM1 and retrospection paid to November, 1999. The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. In his recommendation which issued on the 29th of July, 2002, he recommended that the worker concerned be appointed as CNM1 and retrospection paid from November, 1999. The Health Board appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 7th of August, 2002, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd of December, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The worker concerned did not have sufficient service to place him high enough on the panel for him to be successful.
2. The worker concerned should accept the same compensation as was given to one of his colleagues in lieu of the confusion caused at the time regarding the closing date. The claim for retrospection cannot be conceded.
4. 1. The guidlines for application were clearly stated and were adhered to by the worker concerned.
2. The worker concerned should be appointed to CNM1 and retrospection paid to November, 1999.
The Board has contrasted the redress recommended by the Rights Commissioner in the case of the claimant with that recommended in the case of one of his colleagues. Whilst the case of this other person is not before the Court, it appears from the information provided by the Board that his circumstances are significantly different from that of the claimant. The claimant had no input into the decision to lift the closing date for applications, nor was his trade Union consulted.
The Court considers the conclusions and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner as reasonable and appropriate. The appeal is disallowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th December, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.