SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
IRELAND EAST HOSPITAL GROUP
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY FORSA TRADE UNION)
1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s) ADJ-00036853, CA-00048039.
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.’’
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.
Summary of Employer arguments
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.
There are two issues under appeal. They are the amount to be paid to the Worker in respect of 225 hours worked by her, for which she has not been paid and a claimed failure by the Employer to adhere to its own processes in the filling of a promotion post.
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.
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.