Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94379 Case Number: LCR14595 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - A WORKER;KIERAN MULCHAY SOLICITORS |
Dispute concerning conditions of employment.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and further
oral arguments put forward at the hearing, the Court is of the
view that the claimant was not unfairly treated and accordingly
her claim for compensation must fail.
The Court accordingly does not recommend in her favour.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94379 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14595
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY KIERAN MULCHAY SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Board operates 2 panels for employment. Temporary
panels for relief work are formed from time to time.
When permanent panels are formed they are substituted
for permanent appointments as they arise. The temporary
panel is for temporary/locum employment with the Board.
Temporary workers are employed to cover posts which are
vacant. Locum workers are employed to provide cover for
annual leave and sick-leave for existing permanent
staff. Whether a worker is employed from the temporary
panel for temporary or locum work depends on the placing
of the worker in the panel's order of merit.
2. The worker was first placed on the temporary panel in
1992. In the lifetime of 2 consecutive panels, the
worker was employed for 82 days during 1992 and 1993.
The most recent temporary panel was formed on 27th May,
1993; the worker did not apply for inclusion in this
panel. Her last day's work with the board was 20th
August, 1993.
3. On 8th June, 1994, the worker wrote to the Labour Court
seeking an investigation under the terms of Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
investigated the dispute on 18th October, 1994, in
Wexford.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was engaged as a temporary worker. Despite
the commitments of the Board and its officers (details
supplied), the worker's employment status was changed to
relief or casual worker without any consultation or
negotiation on the matter.
2. Over 2 years the worker received only 82 days'
employment. She received no training whatsoever despite
her requests on a number of occasions. There appeared
to be no fair system for the allocation of work. The
allocation appeared to be at the whim of quite junior
colleagues. The worker fared badly in the allocation
system (details supplied).
3. There was no adequate supervision system in operation to
ensure fair procedures and complaints redress. The
worker had a number of difficulties throughout her
employment (details supplied) but she did not have ready
access to an impartial forum for complaint.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. From the outset the worker had some difficulty in
integrating into the workplace and relationships between
herself and her colleagues were not amicable (details
supplied). These matters were eventually resolved and
on 8th June, 1994, the personnel officer advised the
worker that if she wished to be considered for further
temporary/locum employment she should apply for
inclusion in the normal way. The worker declined to
apply.
2. The Board is satisfied that the worker was treated
fairly in relation to access to employment. The
worker's conditions were no different from those of any
other individual who was similarly placed on the panel's
order of merit. The conditions by which the worker was
employed have been agreed with the staff for some years
and the Board is not in dispute with the staff
organisations about their operation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and further
oral arguments put forward at the hearing, the Court is of the
view that the claimant was not unfairly treated and accordingly
her claim for compensation must fail.
The Court accordingly does not recommend in her favour.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.