Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90661 Case Number: LCR13393 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning compensation for a laundry Supervisor.
Recommendation:
5. This claim is acknowledged as unique in so far as the claimant
filled an acting-up position continuously for six years. However,
throughout that time the claimant was fully aware of her position
and received the appropriate additional payments.
The length of time for which she filled the acting-up position did
not confer an automatic right to the permanent position but the
claimant's satisfactory service over the period did create for her
a not unreasonable expectation that she would get the job.
In the highly unusual circumstances, of the case, and without
creating a precedent for acting-up situations, the Court considers
that the Board should pay the claimant #1,300 by way of
compensation and so recommends.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90661 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13393
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning compensation for a laundry Supervisor.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Board operate a laundry system at Waterford Regional
Hospital. The total laundry operation at the hospital has been
revamped as part of a #50 million new building operation. The new
laundry acts as the central unit for the entire South Eastern
Health Board. As part of the changes, a new position of laundry
manager was created and a further competition was held for the
already existing position of laundry supervisor. A dispute arose
when the worker who had been acting in the position of laundry
supervisor was not appointed.
2. The worker was appointed to the position of acting laundry
supervisor on 6th November, 1984. This acting up assignment ended
in April, 1990 following a competition for the position. The
worker competed for the position but was unsuccessful. The Union
claimed compensation for the worker of 156 x #25. #25 is the
weekly loss incurred by the worker on losing the acting up
allowance. The worker was in the position for 6 years. The Board
refused to make any offer on the claim on the basis that workers
acting up were paid at the higher rate only for the period of
acting up.
4. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference on
7th November, 1990 at which no progress was possible. The matter
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation on 14th November, 1990. A Labour Court
investigation took place in Waterford on 14th August, 1991. (the
earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker secured the position of acting laundry
supervisor by competition in 1984. Prior to this the position
was filled by another person who was found to be unsuitable.
The worker was found satisfactory during probation and filled
the position until April, 1990. The laundry operation at the
hospital was revamped and the worker's position was advertised
in addition to the newly created post of laundry manager. The
worker, on advice, competed for her position to ensure, it
would not be lost to her by default.
2. The Union argue that the worker was entitled to be
appointed to the position by right. She had competed for the
position by interview in 1984 and had filled it successfully
in the years up to April, 1990. The Board was in a position
to appoint the worker as a supervisor but they refused stating
that it was a new post. The Board has not provided any
evidence to demonstrate that the post is a new one.
3. The worker had enjoyed the acting allowance for 6 years.
This, in itself, created an expectation that it would be
continued. This expectation was within reason and not
honoured by the Board. Stemming from the building of the new
hospital boilermen, porters and attendants who suffered a loss
as a result of the change have been compensated. By
compensating the worker for acting up for 6 years a precedent
is not created nor does it endanger the acting up system.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is acknowledged by the Board that the acting covered
a lengthy period. It must be understood that considerable
delays were experienced in obtaining sanction for the
commencement of the building project at the hospital. This
delay accounts for the protracted period of acting up, in the
particular case.
2. Acting allowances are only paid where additional
responsibilities are being carried out which relate to a
higher post. It was never part of the structured earnings of
the worker and she could have chosen to revert back at any
time to her substantive grade. Vacancies within the Board are
normally filled as they arise. In this case the delay in
commissioning the new hospital was outside the control of the
Board.
3. An unnecessary precedent would be created if this claim
is conceded. Acting positions is a common feature of the
Board for both long and short term assignments and much
depends on the circumstances of the individual post. By
conceding this claim the Board will be faced with claims for
loss of earnings where similar situations arise. By
constraining the Board in this way, it will be precluded from
initiating necessary changes as finances permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. This claim is acknowledged as unique in so far as the claimant
filled an acting-up position continuously for six years. However,
throughout that time the claimant was fully aware of her position
and received the appropriate additional payments.
The length of time for which she filled the acting-up position did
not confer an automatic right to the permanent position but the
claimant's satisfactory service over the period did create for her
a not unreasonable expectation that she would get the job.
In the highly unusual circumstances, of the case, and without
creating a precedent for acting-up situations, the Court considers
that the Board should pay the claimant #1,300 by way of
compensation and so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd September, 1991 Kevin Heffernan
J.F./U.S. _______________
Chairman