Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90622 Case Number: LCR13114 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BEAUMONT HOSPITAL - and - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION |
Dispute concerning the termination of employment of a temporary worker.
Recommendation:
8. In the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view
that the claimant might have held an expectation that she would be
retained in her temporary employment until the post she held was
filled on a permanent basis. The Court considers that her
distress was caused by her replacement by another temporary
employee and the fact that she was given no reason as to why she
was let go. Management informed the Court that they understood
she was seeking alternative employment. The Court notes that she
has now been furnished with a reference which was acknowledged as
satisfactory.
The Court is concerned that relations between the parties appear
to be very strained and would urge all concerned to address the
manner of appointment and termination of all temporary employees
as a matter of urgency and agree a procedure which would avoid a
recurrence of a similar incident.
The Court does not consider that the concession of the Union's
monetary claim would be justified and recommends that the Hospital
pay the claimant an ex gratia sum of #100 for the upset caused.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90622 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13114
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BEAUMONT HOSPITAL
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the termination of employment of a
temporary worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker here concerned was employed at Beaumont Hospital as
a temporary Grade 11 (clerical) on the 25th September, 1989 on
month to month contracts. For the duration of her employment the
worker was assigned to the Pathology Department where she provided
a general range of secretarial support services to the Department.
3. On 23rd May, 1990 the worker received a week's notice from the
Hospital that her contract was not being renewed. However, around
that time the worker and the Union became aware that other
temporary staff were being recruited on short-term contracts. The
Union made representations on the workers behalf appealing the
termination of her employment and seeking an extension. The
worker's employment was extended for a further week and her
employment terminated on 7th June, 1990.
4. At a local meeting the Union pointed out that other temporary
workers were being recruited while the worker here concerned was
let go Management responded that the worker was being let go to
facilitate recruitment from a permanent panel. Subsequently the
Union formed the impression that the worker was being let go for
reasons other than the natural termination of contract and wrote
to the Hospital accordingly. In reply, the Hospital stated inter
alia that the worker's employment was terminated on the expiry
date of her contract and also that temporary employees are
recruited on an as required basis to fill posts falling vacant for
a variety of reasons and not on a last in first out basis. When
such posts are filled on a permanent basis the temporary employees
employment is terminated on expiry date of contract.
5. The Union was not satisfied with this reply and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 31st
August, 1990. A conciliation conference was held on 18th October,
1990. As no agreement was reached the parties consented to a
referral to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on 27th November, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Other temporary clerical personnel who were contemporaries
of the worker here concerned or who had started after her were
being kept on. The Hospital was also actively engaged in the
recruitment of further temporaries. When this was pointed out
to Management they intimated that there were other reasons for
the termination of the workers employment. On hearing this
the worker was very distressed as were her family.
2. Temporary staff are moved around as required and the
worker functioned in several different job roles in her period
of employment. The Union is aware that she was not replaced
by a permanent post holder or from the panel. The particular
post she was carrying out at the time of termination continued
to be filled on a temporary basis up to end of August, 1990.
3. The worker has been subjected to unnecessary distress and
hurt and seeks redress. The worker's contemporaries were kept
on until at least the end of August and the post she held on
termination continued to be filled in a temporary capacity
until that time. Accordingly, the Union seeks a satisfactory
reference and payment of an amount equivalent to her gross pay
in respect of period 8th June to 31st August, 1990. (Prior to
the commencement of the Court hearing Management handed the
worker a reference which the Union stated was satisfactory).
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Board in no way breached its obligation to the worker
nor was there ever any indication given that her employment
contract would be extended up to or beyond any given date.
Quite the opposite, the Board always maintained that the
worker's period of employment was short-term and interim in
nature with no guarantee of long-term or permanent employment
and would be subject to one week's notice of termination by
either side.
2. The Board honoured in full, all of its employment
contracts with the worker and she was informed in keeping with
the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act that her
contract of employment would not be renewed beyond the expiry
date of her last contract. There can be no question that the
Board did not comply with the current Industrial Relations
legislation in this case.
3. The worker was not offered a further contract after the
7th June because the Board had made alternative arrangements
to fill the vacant post on a long term basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. In the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view
that the claimant might have held an expectation that she would be
retained in her temporary employment until the post she held was
filled on a permanent basis. The Court considers that her
distress was caused by her replacement by another temporary
employee and the fact that she was given no reason as to why she
was let go. Management informed the Court that they understood
she was seeking alternative employment. The Court notes that she
has now been furnished with a reference which was acknowledged as
satisfactory.
The Court is concerned that relations between the parties appear
to be very strained and would urge all concerned to address the
manner of appointment and termination of all temporary employees
as a matter of urgency and agree a procedure which would avoid a
recurrence of a similar incident.
The Court does not consider that the concession of the Union's
monetary claim would be justified and recommends that the Hospital
pay the claimant an ex gratia sum of #100 for the upset caused.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
11th December, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.