Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92581 Case Number: AD92218 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ST JAMES'S HOSPITAL BOARD - and - A WORKER;THE MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGISTS ASSOCIATION |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 133/92.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made at the hearing the
Court is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner could in the
circumstances have made no other recommendation. The Court
therefore decides that the Recommendation should stand.
The Court noted the views of both parties on the difficulties
arising on the matter of equivalency of qualifications and concurs
with the view that, in the light of developments since the 1970's,
the issue warrants a further review by all the interests
concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92581 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD21892
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ST JAMES'S HOSPITAL BOARD
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY THE MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGISTS ASSOCIATION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 133/92.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a medical laboratory
technician at St. James's Hospital. He applied for a position of
Senior Biochemist, which was advertised in a Sunday Newspaper, on
the 17th November, 1991. He was advised by the Hospital that he
could not be considered for the position because he did not
possess the qualifications required for the post. The worker
claimed that he had been unfairly treated and referred the issue
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On
the 18th August, 1992 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:
"I therefore recommend that this claim must fail since I am
satisfied that St. James Hospital had not acted unfairly in
regarding the worker's application as not meeting the
qualification requirements for the post of senior
biochemist".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
On the 9th September, 1992 the worker appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal on the 28th October, 1992.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is a Fellow of the Institute of Medical
Laboratory Sciences (F.I.M.L.S.) since 1986. In 1990, he was
awarded an M.Sc. in Biomedical Sciences/Clinical Biochemistry
by the University of Ulster.
The Hospital does not accept either of these qualifications as
being the equivalent of a B.Sc. degree in
chemistry/biochemistry. Three Irish Universities regard the
worker's qualifications as being equivalent to an Honours
B.Sc. degree when assessing students' eligibility to pursue
higher degree courses.
2. The worker has seventeen years' experience of working in
hospital laboratories, including six with his Fellowship
qualification. The duties and responsibilities of basic grade
biochemists and basic grade technicians are identical and
interchangeable. It is difficult to understand why the
worker's many years of experience in a recognised laboratory
can be deemed inadequate for the post of Senior Biochemist.
3. Other hospitals have acknowledged the qualifications and
experience of technicians in interviewing and appointing them
to promotional biochemist posts and the worker concerned was
called to interview in recent years for a Senior Biochemist
post in a major Dublin hospital.
4. The qualifications of the worker concerned are, at the
very least, equivalent to those required for the post of
Senior Biochemist and his experience is adequate. The
Association has no objection to the issue being decided by an
appropriate academic body, (responsible for validating
qualifications) possibly comprising members of the Academy of
Medical Laboratory Sciences and members of the Association of
Clinical Biochemists of Ireland.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The post of Senior Biochemist which was advertised for the
Biochemistry Department of the Hospital, specified the
qualifications as agreed between the Association of Clinical
Biochemists and the Department of Health. The specified
requirements and the job description (details supplied to the
Court) are a B.Sc. Degree of a recognised University in
Chemistry or Biochemistry or equivalent qualification and at
least 3 years post-qualification experience in a recognised
laboratory. Management's view is that the equivalent
qualification means a professional examination such as the
A.R.I.C. (now G.R.S.C.) of the Royal Society of Chemistry or
the Graduateship of the Institute of Biology (G.I. Bio. M.I.
Biol) by examination. The worker's M.Sc. degree does not
fulfil the criteria implicit in the above basic requirement to
have pursued University B.Sc. course studies for three/four
years with Chemistry or Biochemistry or Molecular Biology as
the main subject of the degree.
2. Even if the worker's M.Sc. qualification was deemed to be
equivalent to the specified B.Sc., he would not possess the
required 3 years post-qualification experience as he did not
obtain this qualification until 1990. In addition a candidate
with an appropriate M.Sc. and the B.Sc. would still be
required to have 3 years post-qualification experience as a
Biochemist to qualify for a Biochemist Senior Grade post. The
worker concerned was never employed as a Biochemist.
3. The qualifications for all posts under St. James's
Hospital Board are determined by the Department of Health.
Following a request for written clarification, the Department
by letter dated 23rd July, 1992 (details supplied to the
Court) confirmed that the worker did not have the necessary
qualifications for the post of Senior Biochemist.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made at the hearing the
Court is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner could in the
circumstances have made no other recommendation. The Court
therefore decides that the Recommendation should stand.
The Court noted the views of both parties on the difficulties
arising on the matter of equivalency of qualifications and concurs
with the view that, in the light of developments since the 1970's,
the issue warrants a further review by all the interests
concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
6th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.