FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST. JAMES'S HOSPITAL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY THE MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTISTS ASSOCIATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Alleged unfair selection procedures used to fill positions.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 21st of November, 2000, the Hospital held a confined competition to fill two positions – a Principal Grade Biochemist’s post and a Senior Biochemist’s post. An employee, who is a Basic Grade Medical Laboratory Technician in the Biochemistry Department, became aware of the interviews that day. He questioned the eligibility criteria and the fact that the competition had not been advertised. The Hospital informed him that the positions were part of a restructuring agreement with IMPACT and were confined to existing Biochemists in the Department.
The Union, on behalf of the employee, referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Hospital objected to a Rights Commissioner’s hearing and the Union referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 29th of August, 2001, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 23rd of October, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Despite requests under the Freedom of Information Act, the Hospital has not produced any written evidence of an agreement with IMPACT.
2. At a minimum, a notice should have been displayed in the Biochemistry Department to inform all potential candidates of the competition and inviting applications. Only some staff received telephone calls inviting them to compete for the posts.
3. The rights of at least one eligible candidate were infringed because he was not made aware of the interviews. He satisfies the eligibility criteria for the Senior Biochemist’s post and has previously been employed twice as a Biochemist.
4. The Hospital failed to apply fair procedures to the filling of at least one position. As the successful candidates will be confirmed in their positions at this time, it would be unfair to require them to compete for the posts again. However, as the claimant’s rights have been infringed, he should be compensated in some way.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1999 the Hospital reached an agreement with IMPACT to restructure Biochemist posts by reducing the Basic Grade Biochemist posts by three. It was a cost neutral agreement and the reductions were to occur through a process of natural attrition.
2. It was a key component of the agreement to constrain the competition for regraded posts to existent staff within the Biochemistry Department. This was to recognise the impact of the restructuring on the redeployment status of permanent employees and to provide appropriate recognition for long term, experienced personnel.
3. It would have been inappropriate to include the claimant in the closed selection process, irrespective of his academic qualifications. He was not employed in the Hospital as a Biochemist and has not been affected in any way by the restructuring.
4. The agreement with IMPACT will conclude with the filling of one remaining position at principal grade, a position for which the claimant does not possess the requisite qualifications or experience. Following the finalisation of this agreement, it is anticipated that there will be two vacancies in the Biochemistry Department. These positions will be advertised for open competition in the normal way and the claimant is welcome to apply for them.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the upcoming two vacancies, at Senior Biochemist Grade and basic Biochemist Grade, be filled by internal competition confined to serving qualified staff within the Biochemistry Department.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th October, 2001______________________
D.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.