Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95591 Case Number: LCR15011 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the filling of permanent vacancies.
Recommendation:
The Court, on the basis of the information given, has concluded
that concession of the Union's claim is precluded by Ministerial
Directive.
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of the
claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95591 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15011
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 201), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the filling of permanent vacancies.
BACKGROUND:
2. The South Eastern Health Board fills established posts
(following public advertisement) by way of interviews from
which a panel of successful candidates is identified and from
which vacancies are filled over a period of time. The Board
also recruits temporary staff to provide cover for permanent
staff on leave of absence. They are engaged on a temporary
basis. The Union claims that competitions for permanent
posts should be confined to existing temporary staff employed
by the Board. Management rejected the Union's claim. The
Union sought to refer the dispute to the Labour Relations
Commission but the Board objected to such a referral. On the
19th October, 1995 the Union referred the dispute to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Kilkenny on the
29th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Board's decision that all permanent vacancies filled
from competition would be placed on a panel and that
candidates would not be advised of their placing on the
panel discriminates against temporary workers who have
many years service in a temporary capacity.
When permanent vacancies arise temporary workers have to
compete with workers from outside the Service and in
many cases the posts go to candidates from outside the
Health Board. The Union is not opposed to the concept
of public advertisement, but feels that the Health Board
should advertise publicly to form panels of temporary
workers who would be available to work within the Health
Board on a temporary basis. Permanent vacancies should
then be filled from the temporary workforce. In this
way the public would get an opportunity to apply for
positions within the Health Board, while the workers on
the temporary staff would benefit from confined
competitions for permanent posts.
2. The finding of a method of filling permanent vacancies
will require considerable negotiation and the Union is
seeking meaningful negotiations with the Board. The
outcome should be placed before the elected
representatives of the Board and union members for
consideration.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the Board's policy, determined by Section 14 of
the Health Act, that all permanent posts are filled by
way of open competition. The Board, as an equal
opportunity employer must afford the opportunity to all
suitable qualified staff to compete for available posts.
2. The Board is not in a position to consider the request
from the Union to have the competition for non-nursing
staff confined to existing temporary staff working
within the Board's area, as to do so would be in breach
of the statutory regulations governing the appointment
of staff.
3. The Board has, to date, confirmed a number of long-term
temporary staff in permanent positions within the
Board's area and in fact quite a high percentage of
temporary staff have been engaged in a permanent
capacity, in Wexford Hospital and St. Lukes, Kilkenny.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, on the basis of the information given, has concluded
that concession of the Union's claim is precluded by Ministerial
Directive.
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of the
claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th December, 1995 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.