Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95608 Case Number: LCR14986 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning three temporary relief ambulance drivers attached to Tralee General Hospital.
Recommendation:
The Court finds it unreasonable that the employees here concerned,
given their length of service, should be dismissed.
It is the view of the Court that they should be retained in
employment and, accordingly, the Court recommends that the parties
meaningfully discuss arrangements leading to their retention.
Should the parties fail to reach agreement within one month of the
issue of this recommendation, the Court will consider the progress
made with a view to issuing a further specific recommendation.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95608 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14986
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning three temporary relief ambulance drivers
attached to Tralee General Hospital.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the retention of three temporary relief
ambulance drivers who failed to secure permanent positions at
competition.
The drivers worked in a temporary capacity over a period of
five to ten years. In May, 1995, the Company advertised a
vacancy for a permanent driver and a panel was set up for
future vacancies. The three drivers concerned applied but
were not successful. As a result of rationalisation by the
Department of Health additional permanent posts were
sanctioned while the temporary posts were discontinued. The
Company offered compensation to the drivers, which was
rejected on several occasions.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference took place on 19th October,
1995. Agreement was not reached and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 31st October, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have unblemished records over a considerable
period of time and have established their right to
continue working.
2. The drivers concerned were not given the opportunity to
attend basic training courses and were therefore at a
significant disadvantage when applying for an open
competition.
3. The Company was not obliged to publicly advertise the
vacancy as it was a non-officer post. It could have
appointed the temporary relief drivers to permanent
relief drivers' positions without difficulty. The
drivers had previously secured positions on employment
panels and had passed aptitude tests for the ambulance
service.
4. The advertisement was for one permanent post only, and
previously it was the practice that any serving
employee, if unsuccessful, would continue in his job as
before.
5. The Personnel Policy Guidelines regarding temporary
appointments were not followed. The drivers should have
been asked to sign new contracts after each six month
period, but this was not the case. The drivers
therefore presumed they were in continuous employment.
Under the Unfair Dismissal Act of 1977 to 1993, their
employment cannot be terminated without just cause.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the issue of the National Ambulance Review
Body's report, and discussions with the Department of
Health, it was decided to fill two vacant ambulance
controller posts and one permanent relief ambulance
driver post.
2. The Board was obliged to advertise publicly the driver's
post and to hold an open competition. The advertisement
clearly stated that a panel may be formed to fill future
vacancies.
3. Over fifty-five applications were received for the post.
The standard at competition was extremely high and it
was regrettable that none of the temporary relief
drivers was successful in securing places on the panel.
4. Additional permanent posts have now been sanctioned, and
these must be offered to the successful candidates who
secured places on the panel. The revised staff
complement for the Hospital does not include sanction
for temporary relief drivers.
5. The Company has offered a compensation package to the
three drivers, which was in line with the Public Service
Early Retirement Package. The Board is willing to meet
any reasonable compensation package put forward by the
Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds it unreasonable that the employees here concerned,
given their length of service, should be dismissed.
It is the view of the Court that they should be retained in
employment and, accordingly, the Court recommends that the parties
meaningfully discuss arrangements leading to their retention.
Should the parties fail to reach agreement within one month of the
issue of this recommendation, the Court will consider the progress
made with a view to issuing a further specific recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st December, 1995 Tom McGrath
D.G./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.