FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE MIDLAND AREA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (SIPTU) IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION (IMPACT) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Regularisation of position of 2 employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerned a claim by SIPTU that the Employer failed to regularise the position of two employees into permanent Clerical Officer Grade III positions. The two Workers have been in acting up positions for a number of years and the Union sought to regularisetheir situation. IMPACT is an interested party to this dispute, as it claims that the concession of this claim would violate existing local agreements on promotions.
This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13th December 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th May 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties. At the hearing it was clarified that one of the Workers, Ms D, had been in a permanent Clerical Officer position since August 2000, so Ms. D's case was not, therefore, before the Court. The Court then proceeded to deal only with Ms. O'C's case.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Ms O'C has been working as a Clerical Officer for over three years - her pay slip describes her as a 'Clerical Officer'.
2. Ms O'C has been discriminated against on at least two occasions because she has a permanent position as an Attendant: firstly, she was not shortlisted for a confined Clerical Officer competition; and secondly, she was not a benificiary of a recent local conversion process for temporary Clerical Officers as part of the move to the New Hospital at Tullamore, because she was already employed in a permanent capacity, albeit as an Attendant.
3.The Employer's claim that this case is an intra-union dispute is incorrect, and does not release the Employer from its responsibilities in this matter.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer has no objection to the concession of this claim as long as it does not result in a dispute between it and IMPACT.
2. The Employer does not believe that the concession of this claim would breach any existing agreements with IMPACT.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerned SIPTU’s assertion that HSE failed to regularise the position of two employees into permanent Clerical Officer Grade III positions and it sought to regularise their situation and ensure application of the correct pay and incremental progression. The two employees have been in acting up roles for a number of years. At the hearing it was clarified that one of the claimants, Ms. D had been placed in a permanent Clerical Officer position, since 29th August 2000. This clarification was subsequently confirmed in written correspondence between the parties. Therefore, the matter of Ms. D was not before the Court.
IMPACT presented a submission to the Court as an interested party to the proceedings. It disputes HSE’s right to designate the claimant into the permanent position sought by SIPTU as to do so would violate agreements and procedures agreed between all interested parties,viz.PCW which provided for Health And Local Authority Agencies to fill up to a maximum of 5% of Clerical Officer positions from non-officer grades; the established practice whereby promotions into and within clerical/administrative grades in the HSE are by way of competition, etc..
Having considered the submissions of both parties and the presentation made by IMPACT, the Court must have full regard to the integrity and inviolability of the prevailing agreements and established procedures agreed between the parties and consequently, it cannot recommend in favour of the Union’s claim.
However, due to the special circumstances prevailing in this case, the Court would urge the parties to meet to discuss Ms. O’C’s situation with a view to accommodating her.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th May, 2008.______________________
JMcC.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.