FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MOUNT CARMEL HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY JOE GREENAN) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR 11466/02/JH
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed by Mount Carmel Hospital since 1981. She was promoted to Clinical Nurse Manager 11 (CNM 11) in 1992. In September, 2001, she applied for an advertised position as assistant matron. However, the interview was cancelled due to a lack of candidates for the post. Management readvertised the post again in January, 2002. Three candidates, including the worker applied for the post. She was not successful in her application. The worker claims that the selection process was not fair.
Management rejects the claim that the selection process was unfair.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's investigation on the 19th March, 2003. The Rights Commissioner issued her Recommendation as follows:-
- " Based on the submissions set out in the foregoing I find that the worker does not have a valid complaint regarding the interview process which followed the advertising the assistant matron position in 2002. I recommend that the hospital make a contribution of 50% of the cost of the counselling undertaking by the worker to date and that they pay for that counselling in full for a period of six monthsfrom the date of the issue of this recommendation or to the cessation of that counselling whichever is the sooner. Payment to be made on the basis of invoices submitted. I recommend that there be a discussion between the worker, her representative, the Matron and the H.R. manager regarding the working relationship going forward to ensure that there are no difficulties of the kind described at the hearing."
( The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation).
in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard
the appeal on the 29th July, 2003.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:3. 1. The worker should have been appointed to the position of assistant matron in October, 2001 when the date for the interview was first set.2. The worker was led to believe that she was going to get the post.3. The worker has over twenty years' experience working in the hospital and was highly suitable for appointment to this post.4. The worker feels distressed, humiliated, embarrassed and undermined as a manager and believes that her promotional prospects have been seriously damaged as a result of this process.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the interest of fairness to all and to ensure that the hospital gets the best candidates available, the interview process is the only way to decide on such issues.
2. Deviation from this would negate the value of the process. The best candidate was offered the job.
3. The worker failed to convince the panel that she was the best candidate.4. Other internal candidates in Mount Carmel for other positions have been unsuccessful at interview and have accepted this. No exception can been made for the claimant.5. Any concession to the worker on this claim would be unfair to the other candidates and also to the hospital. Management asks the Court to reject the claim.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the written and oral submissions of the parties and has concluded that the Rights Commissioner's analysis of the case is accurate and that her recommendation is reasonable.
It is clear from the submissions that in consequence of the matter forming the subject of this dispute serious interpersonal difficulties have developed between the claimant and her immediate manager. It is equally clear to the Court that the current position in that regard is not conducive to the continuance of a viable working relationship.
It is noted that the Rights Commissioner recommended that discussions take place between the parties aimed at resolving those difficulties. Now that the substantive dispute has been finally adjudicated upon the Court urges the parties to put this matter behind them and make an earnest effort to restore normality in the totality of their working relations. With this in view, discussions at the level recommended by the Rights Commissioner should be resumed at the first available opportunity.
The recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th August, 2003______________________
LW/LWDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.