FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD (ST FINBARR'S HOSPITAL) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. The selection method for the filling of a vacancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Hospital is divided into wards, each with its own kitchen area. St. James's Ward is an 18-bed geriatric ward and the kitchen duty was held by a particular worker for approximately 8 years. During that time she worked the kitchen and related duties only. She retired in August, 1996. When the vacancy notice was posted, it carried a job- description that included, in addition to kitchen and related duties, other cleaning work and the requirement to assist nurses with the lifting of patients. The Union objected to what it perceived as a change in duties. A Union member who had expressed interest in the post prior to the retirement date would not be interested in the job if it involved regular lifting of patients.
The parties held meetings at local level in relation to the matter following which considerable confusion resulted. The Union held the view that the change in duties was aimed at giving the job to a specific candidate to the exclusion of the Union member who had expressed interest in it. A conciliation conference followed, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which it was agreed that there were two elements to the dispute, i.e., the job description and the filling of the post:-
Job Description:-
The Union position was that the previous job-holder and her predecessor had not been asked to carry out duties other than kitchen duties. Accordingly, the Union claimed, the Hospital was seeking to change the elements of the post, without consultation and agreement. The Hospital responded that the previous job-holder was not required to lift
patients on the grounds of a health problem she suffered. The Hospital stated that the lifting of patients was part of the overall job-description, originally drafted in 1977, under which attendants are employed.
Filling of the Post:-
The Hospital offered the worker who had sought the post the choice of awaiting a Labour Court hearing before deciding whether or not she wanted the position in St. James's Ward. Alternatively she could be assigned to St. Oliver's Ward (over 40 beds) where there is a kitchen job with no lifting of patients involved, a post which might not remain available by the time of the Court hearing. The Union rejected the latter offer and sought to refer the matter of the job-description to the Court.
The dispute was referred to the Court, on the 20th of November, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Cork, on the 5th of February, 1997.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It has always been the custom and practice that the kitchen attendant in the Continuing Care Wards, if and when available, would assist in other ward duties. However, exception was made for the recently retired worker who was not asked to assist in the lifting of patients because of a back injury.
2. Prior to her retirement, it was perceived by hospital management that a more equitable distribution of tasks between attendants in those wards was desirable. The kitchen attendant would be required to assist occasionally with the lifting of patients particularly at weekends when the auxiliary attendant would be off duty in the afternoons. With this in mind, a draft of the duties which would be required of the new appointee to the kitchen in St. James's Ward was drawn up (details supplied to the Court).
3. The Union requested that, as the previous attendant was not required to lift patients, as and when required, that those duties should not now be included in the list of duties of the kitchen attendant in St. James's Ward. Following further discussion, it was agreed to withdraw the notice and to use the notice which is given to every attendant on taking up duty (details supplied).
4. The worker who sought re-deployment to St. James's Ward kitchen is unable to assist nursing staff with patients, as and when required, because of neck and lower back pain. In these circumstances, she was not offered a position in St. James's Ward as she refused to be involved in these duties.
5. As she refused to carry out these duties, the job in question was given to another worker who was resuming duty following a career-break and who did not object to the duties involved.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Hospital set out to place a particular worker in the vacant post, being confident that that person would assume the additional duties which the Board wanted included in the job-description. The Hospital had no regard for the worker who first indicated an interest in the post despite the fact that she had given 16 years of loyal service.
2. The introduction of the additional duty was initiated by Ward sisters and pursued by the Domestic Supervisor without any discussion with Union representatives. The whole thrust of the Hospital's proposal was to cater for eventualities such as absenteeism by the nursing staff which would then enable the Hospital or Ward Sister to delegate non-medical nursing duties to Union members.
3. The delegation of non-medical nursing duties to kitchen staff is unacceptable on the grounds that the agreed category to cover such duties is that of Auxiliary Nursing staff. Additionally, there is a considerable risk of cross-infection as a result of employees preparing food and, at the same time, being expected to assist in the care of patients.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that the manner in which this vacancy was filled is undesirable and not conducive to maintaining and developing a climate of good industrial relations.
The Court notes that there are differing views between the parties regarding the work content of the job. Also it appears to the Court from the evidence given, and notwithstanding the practice in other wards, that certain work included in the vacancy notice has not been carried out in the ward concerned even prior to the drafting of the job-description in 1977. The Court finds that, whilst the vacancy was advertised, no formal procedures were followed to fill the vacancy.
It is the view of the Court that filling vacancies in the manner adopted in this case does not instil confidence in the employees that applicants will be treated fairly.
The Court considers that, to improve the situation and to avoid similar disputes in the future, the parties should:-
(a) Discuss the work content of the job and draw up an agreed job-description
(b) Agree procedures to apply in respect of the advertising and filling of vacancies.
The Court finds that in this case the claimant was unreasonably treated and the hospital should make arrangements to allocate her to a suitable position on a permanent basis.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
28th of February, 1997______________________
M.K./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.