Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89355 Case Number: LCR12493 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BELMONT PARK HOSPITAL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the status of an assistant director and also the salary scale for the post.
Recommendation:
10. The Court is of the firm opinion that the change in practice
proposed by Management, and the consequent diminution of the
worker's status, consequent on his unsuccessful application for a
promotional post is unfair and inequitable.
The Court therefore recommends that he continue to act-up in the
manner provided for in his contract.
Salary Scale: The Court recommends that the parties meet for
further discussion on this claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89355 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12493
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BELMONT PARK HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the status of an assistant director and
also the salary scale for the post.
BACKGROUND:
2. Belmont Park Hospital provides services for the mentally
handicapped and is run by the Brothers of Charity. The services
provided are residential and day services, workshops,
horticultural, agricultural and landscaping training for both
residential and day attenders. It also provides support services
for statutory and voluntary organisations and diagnostic
assessment and advisory clinics within the South Eastern Health
Board region.
3. The worker concerned has been employed as assistant director
of residential care since the 31st May, 1976. He joined the
psychiatric service on 14th July, 1975.
4. In 1987 the Hospital decided to restructure its Management
system. This resulted in a competition for the post of director
of residential care. Eight applications were received and placed
on the panel in order of merit. The person placed first was
offered and accepted the post. The worker concerned was placed
fourth on the panel.
5. He was also informed that the people placed above him on the
panel would be senior to him for the purposes of acting up as
director. The Union objected to this position on the basis that
it was a diminution of the worker's status.
6. On the question of salary scale the Union is pursuing a claim
to have the worker placed on the same grade as assistant chief
nursing officer. However, as an interim measure the Union is
seeking to have the worker placed on the same scale as the
Department of Health grade of assistant director of mental
handicap services. This is a nine point scale which runs from
#12,609 to #14,955. The worker's grade is currently linked to
that of junior ward sister which is a 6 point scale running from
#12,371 to #13,339. The Hospital contends that this scale is
adequate given the salary structure existing in the Brothers of
Charity Mental Handicap Services, the level of responsibility
attaching to the post and the extent of services provided in
comparison with the Brother of Charity Mental Handicap Services in
other regions.
7. Both these issues were referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 31st August, 1988. A conciliation conference
was held on 10th November, 1988. As no agreement was possible
both parties subsequently consented to a referral to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was
held in Waterford on 21st June, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. It was previous practice and part of his conditions of
employment that the worker would act-up in the absence of the
director, (details supplied to the Court). Since the results
of the interview the worker now finds himself in the position
that he is placed below two other applicants for the purposes
of acting-up. This is clearly a diminution of the worker's
status and conditions of employment.
2. The interview board acted unreasonably in drawing-up a
panel for acting-up as director which ignored the worker's
position, previous practice and his contract of employment.
Its recommendations on this particular matter should therefore
be set aside.
3. The Union contends that the worker, and only he may act-up
in the position of director when he is available to do so.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. All applicants for the position of director were
interviewed by an independent interview board, and it is
incumbent upon Management to follow the recommendations of the
interview board. This is in line with well established
practice.
2. On the question of 'loss of status' the Union pointed to
clause 11 of the worker's conditions of employment which
states that, 'The person appointed will act-up for the
Director of Residential Care when required.'
9. 2. Two points arise out of this:-
Firstly it is clear from the wording of this clause that
it does not confer a right on the worker rather it
obliges him to act-up when required.
Secondly it should be noted that the worker has never
previously acted-up into the Director's position since
his appointment in 1975.
Thus there can be no question of any 'loss of status' as a
result of the decision of the interview board.
3. Given the nature of the service provided by the Brothers
of Charity at Belmont Park it is imperative to ensure that the
most suitable people are appointed to the various positions
available.
Any departure from established principles could have serious
repercussions on the quality of services provided, the ability
to attract and retain quality candidates, and would militate
against arrangements for the proper formation of interview
boards.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. The Court is of the firm opinion that the change in practice
proposed by Management, and the consequent diminution of the
worker's status, consequent on his unsuccessful application for a
promotional post is unfair and inequitable.
The Court therefore recommends that he continue to act-up in the
manner provided for in his contract.
Salary Scale: The Court recommends that the parties meet for
further discussion on this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___________________
31st July, 1989.
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.