Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88231 Case Number: LCR11881 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the non-filling of permanent attendant vacancies at the General Hospital, Mullingar.
Recommendation:
8. The Court, whilst appreciating the Union's concern for the
position of temporary employees, nevertheless, taking into account
all the constraints within which the Board has to operate at
present, does not consider it has acted unreasonably.
The Court also understands from the Board's submission that the
question of long term temporary staff will be the subject of
discussion at the Monitoring Committee established under the
programme for National Recovery.
In the circumstances the Court does not recommend in favour of the
Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88231 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11881
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the non-filling of permanent attendant
vacancies at the General Hospital, Mullingar.
BACKGROUND:
2. Mullingar General Hospital services Longford and Westmeath and
at present has a capacity of 129 beds for surgical, medical and
maternity patients.
3. At present seven positions in the porter/attendant grades are
filled by temporary workers on an ongoing basis and one position
of cook grade 2 is filled by a person in an acting up position.
4. The Union is seeking to have these positions filled on a
permanent basis. The Board has argued that because of the present
constraints under which it has to operate it is unable to fill
these positions in a permanent capacity.
5. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 19th November, 1987. A Conciliation Conference
was held on 3rd February, 1988. As no agreement was possible both
parties agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Tullamore on 3rd
May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The vacancies in dispute are not new positions but
existing ones and the Union contends that they should be
filled. The temporary employees of the Board have a
legitimate aspiration to expect permanent employment.
2. The staffing levels decided upon by the Midland Health
Board are the minimum required to maintain an efficient and
effective service.
3. There is no long term cost/saving to the Board as when
they do eventually appoint to these positions they will have
to credit the employees with their previous temporary service
and pay them a lump sum equivalent to what they would have
earned had they been permanent.
4. The present system of filling these positions by
temporary employees on fixed term contracts is an abuse of
the Unfair Dismissals Act and other protective legislation
for workers.
5. It is unfair to keep temporary employees in an ongoing
position of uncertainty as the present system does.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The position at present regarding the number of attendant
posts filled temporarily at the General Hospital, Mullingar
is not out of line with other hospitals in the region
(details supplied to the Court).
2. The reasons whereby attendants may be employed in a
temporary capacity have increased over the years e.g.
increased leave provision, career break schemes have been
more frequently availed of and the job sharing scheme. This,
in turn increases the numbers whom the Board employs
temporarily but cannot employ in a permanent capacity as the
job must be retained in a permanent capacity, e.g. number of
permanent staff on approved leave of absence is currently 4.
3. The number of jobs which can be filled in a permanent
capacity is severely restricted and the Board is of the view
that it is unlikely to receive approval to fill many posts in
a permanent capacity. This has not prevented the Board from
seeking approval to fill a number of attendant posts from the
Department of Health.
4. The Board has a major new extension at the General
Hospital, Mullingar for which an equipment budget of £1m has
been allotted. Additional staff will be required including
attendant staff whom the Board will be seeking to appoint.
Hence any implication that the Board does not wish to have a
permanent workforce is not in keeping with the facts.
5. At national level the Board understands discussions on
the question of long term temporary staff are taking place
between the Department of Health and the alliance of Health
Service Unions with a view to resolving the issues involved.
Any concerns which the Union locally has about the
implication of temporary service for entitlement to
incremental credit is properly a matter for discussion at
national level. It is also the Board's understanding that
the Monitoring Committee established under the Programme for
National Recovery has, as an agenda item, the entire issue of
long term temporary staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court, whilst appreciating the Union's concern for the
position of temporary employees, nevertheless, taking into account
all the constraints within which the Board has to operate at
present, does not consider it has acted unreasonably.
The Court also understands from the Board's submission that the
question of long term temporary staff will be the subject of
discussion at the Monitoring Committee established under the
programme for National Recovery.
In the circumstances the Court does not recommend in favour of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st May, 1988 Evelyn Owens
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman