FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SEAMUS MURPHY) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR9791/02/LM.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been in employment with the Health Board since 1979. The worker, having been successful in a competition, was placed on a panel for grade IV in February 2001. When it was realised that persons at a lower level on the panel and persons on a subsequent panel were appointed to grade IV the worker raised the matter with personnel An offer of a grade IV position was made in July, 2001 and finally took up appointment in September, 2001. The case before the Court concerns a claim that the worker was passed over on the promotional panel for grade IV thus impacting on their chances of applying for competitions for promotion to grade V.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. Her findings and recommendation issued on the 27th March, 2003, as follows:
- “I am satisfied that the claimant's position was frustrated unreasonably by the Midland Health Board however unintentional this was, and as a consequence it impacted negatively on her grading and incremental grade. The claimant's incremental scale to be applied from April 1st. A sum of €600 to be paid to the claimant in compensation.”
On the 7th May, 2003, the worker Appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th April, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Rights Commissioner has stated that the manner in which the worker was dealt with had a negative impact on grading.
2. The Worker should have been allowed to compete for grade V competitions in April and June, 2001, had the effective date of appointment, as the Rights Commissioner recommended, been applied properly.
3. The issue of refusing to allow the worker to compete for grade V posts has not been adequately responded to.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management refutes any suggestions that the worker was passed over on the promotion panel.
2. Management do not agree that the worker was denied access to grade five interviews on any occasion.
3. The Rights Commissioner recommended in favour of the workers request to have incremental dates adjusted annually to April 1st. The worker's issues have been fairly and fully addressed by the Rights Commissioner.
DECISION:
The Court finds that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is fair and reasonable taking into account all aspects of this case.
The Court, therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
11th May, 2004______________________
JOC/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.