Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89546 Case Number: LCR12594 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OUR LADY'S HOSPITAL, CRUMLIN - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the appointment of a Senior Psychologist.
Recommendation:
11. The Court having considered the written and oral submissions
of the parties makes the following recommendations.
1. That Mrs. C. Matthews be appointed senior psychologist
with effect from the date she became acting senior.
2. That she be appointed head of the Department of child
psychology in the main hospital, the other senior
psychologist being head of the psychology department in
the child sexual abuse unit.
3. That in the interests of promoting harmonious relations
and developing the services in an integrated fashion as
desired by the hospital, that the hospital management and
the union discuss with the senior staff concerned areas
of responsibility and other issues of mutual concern
including administrative and clinical matters.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89546 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12594
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: OUR LADY'S HOSPITAL, CRUMLIN
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the appointment of a Senior Psychologist.
BACKGROUND:
2. In late 1987 the Hospital decided to set up a child sexual
abuse unit. Previously this work was carried out as part of the
existing Social/Psychological Services. It was envisaged that the
new unit would be part of the existing services and that the Head
of Department or Section would be the holder of the most senior
grade. Two posts, one at Senior Psychologist level and one at
Basic Psychologist level were advertised.
3. The worker concerned, who has been employed as a Clinical
Psychologist with the hospital for the past six and a half years
applied for the post of Senior Psychologist. Interviews were held
on the 21st December, 1987. The worker concerned was placed
second on the panel. The position was offered to (and accepted
by) a person who had not applied for the job but was interviewed
on the same day by the same interview board for the position of
Psychologist (basic grade).
4. The Union claimed the appointment was irregular because the
successful applicant had not applied for the job, had not got 5
years practical experience and had no previous experience of
dealing with child sexual abuse work. The Hospital contends that
the appointment was proper and that the person appointed had the
required qualifications. There is a difference of opinion between
the parties as to whether a period the successful candidate spent
on post graduate study is reckonable as experience.
5. The Department of Health initially confirmed the appointment
of the successful candidate but subsequently suggested that she be
appointed in an acting capacity. She took up duty on 28th
February, 1988.
6. Numerous meetings were held between the parties and during the
course of discussions an application for re-grading to senior
status on behalf of the worker concerned was submitted by the
Hospital to the Department of Health for consideration (a similar
application had been rejected in 1986). The worker was paid an
allowance equivalent to senior grade while a decision from the
Department of Health was awaited.
7. The Union is seeking to have the worker concerned regraded to
Senior Psychologist with effect from the first date that she was
acting senior and that she be head of all psychologists working in
Crumlin Hospital. The Hospital contends that the successful
candidate at the interview should be head of the Department. The
Hospital received a letter from the Department of Health dated
20th October, 1988 stating, inter alia, that in view of the
exceptional circumstances of the case, the worker concerned could
be upgraded to the post of senior psychologist subject to her
meeting the Hospital's conditions as regards the structure of the
psychological service and the duties of the post. The Hospital is
prepared to up-grade the worker concerned provided she recognises
the successful candidate at the interview as head of the
Department.
8. As no agreement was reached the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 9th February, 1989. A
conciliation conference was held on 19th July, 1989. No agreement
was reached at conciliation and the issue was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on 5th September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The worker concerned was misled because she was told
specifically that child sexual abuse work would be subsumed
into the hospital but it was not and the interview panel
conducted the interview on the basis of a separate C.S.A.
unit.
2. The person appointed was not eligible at the time of her
appointment which was subsequently admitted by the Hospital
and by one of the appointees own referees (details supplied to
the Court).
3. As far back as 1985 the Hospital itself was seeking the
upgrading of the worker concerned and the Department of Health
now concedes that she should be senior.
4. The worker should originally have been selected in the
Senior competition. If there had been a psychologist on the
interview panel this problem would never have arisen. The
worker has been very badly treated and the least she could
expect is that she will be confirmed Head of Department. It
should be noted that she has acted as de facto Head for over
five years and has attended meetings and functions on the same
basis as other Heads of Department. Also all correspondence
to Heads of Department was circulated to her as a Head of
Department therefore any change in this would amount to a
downgrading. In the circumstances the Union urges the Court
to rectify some of the damage caused to her by recommending
her up-grading and appointment as formal Head of Psychology.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The hospital examined the qualifications of the successful
candidate objectively and is satisfied that the person
concerned was properly qualified and appointment was offered.
2. The hospital has at all times endeavoured in the interests
of patient care, to promote harmonious relations and has
attempted to facilitate the worker concerned. It must be
clearly understood and accepted that the ultimate
responsibility for management and policy direction does not
rest with the worker and that she must accept managements
right to manage.
3. While the hospital accepts that there could be two
personnel with senior grading there can, however, be only one
Head of Department. It is of paramount importance for the
effective working of the child sexual abuse unit that the
Hospitals psychological services work as a single entity and
that the child sexual abuse services would not be divorced and
isolated from other aspects of the psychological services.
RECOMMENDATION:
11. The Court having considered the written and oral submissions
of the parties makes the following recommendations.
1. That Mrs. C. Matthews be appointed senior psychologist
with effect from the date she became acting senior.
2. That she be appointed head of the Department of child
psychology in the main hospital, the other senior
psychologist being head of the psychology department in
the child sexual abuse unit.
3. That in the interests of promoting harmonious relations
and developing the services in an integrated fashion as
desired by the hospital, that the hospital management and
the union discuss with the senior staff concerned areas
of responsibility and other issues of mutual concern
including administrative and clinical matters.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
______________________
13th October, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.