FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HOSPITAL GALWAY - AND FIVE WORKERS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR20969/73/77/78/80/04/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns five workers who are employed as Chief Medical Scientists at University College Hospital Galway (UCHG). The claimants are each seeking upgrading to the position of Laboratory Manager. The Galway model evolved over a number of years and each of the claimants are in effect departmental managers in their own specialisation. Cork University Hospital (CUH) adapted the Galway model in the 1990's. In 1997 the Labour Relations Commission recommended the establishment of an Expert Group for medical technicians /technologists as part of a set of proposals to resolve their pay claims under the PCW. Recommendation 65 of the Expert Group report states 'The Expert Group has considered the wider management functions carried out by certain Chief Medical Scientists in 11 large hospitals. It is recommended that in respect of these Chief Medical Scientists, a higher grade of Laboratory Manager be established to reflect the range of and responsibilities of those staff. It is further recommended that the salary of these managers be negotiated by the parties'. Recommendation 66 of the same report states that the 11 hospitals to which this recommendation relates are...... the List of 11 hospitals are named which includes CUH and UCHG. In the Cork and Galway Hospitals none of the scientists were in overall charge. Management at UCHG contends that the Laboratory Manager post be filled by way of a confined competition. The claimants maintain that each of them should be upgraded to the position of Laboratory Manager. They claim that this would be consistent with what happened in CUH. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 14th April, 2005 the Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation as follows:
"Based on the submissions made and for the reasons set out in the foregoing I do not recommend concession of the claim brought by the five claimants. I do recommend that Management proceed with the advertisement of the Laboratory Manager post and that the claimants cooperate fully with such an advertisement and with the person appointed to the post."
In April, 2005 the workers appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Galway on the 9th September, 2005.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants are each entitled to be upgraded to the Laboratory Manager grade. This interpretation has been confirmed by the General Manager at CUH who upgraded 4 Departmental Chief Medical Scientists automatically in Cork to Laboratory Manager. UCHG and CUH have the same structure and deliver similar regional services.
2. The HSEA Circular (16th October, 2002) concerning the arrangements for the filling of the post contradicts the wording of Recommendation 65. The Management of CUH gave primacy to the Expert Review over the HSEA letter and upgraded the Chief Medical Scientists automatically to Laboratory Managers. This action has not been rescinded by the HSEA or the Department of Health and Children. The claimants seek parity with their colleagues in Cork to be upgraded to Laboratory Managers.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Agreement was reached in October, 2002 with the MLSA, the union representing Chief Medical Scientists, with regard to, inter alia, the first filling of the Laboratory Manager Grade in various locations. As no Chief Medical Scientist was in overall charge of the Laboratory in UCHG it advised that such a post should be filled by way of confined competition among those holding the qualifications for appointment as Chief Medical Scientists. The MLSA agreed that this post should be filled in the manner outlined as per the HSEA Circular.
2. Management seeks to implement all aspects of the Expert Group Report as they apply to UCHG and as per the collective agreement between HSEA and MLSA.
DECISION:
Whilst there may be some ambiguity in the terms of the relevant recommendation of the Expert Group, an Agreement was subsequently concluded between Management and the Union representing the claimants, dated 16th October, 2002, the terms of which are perfectly clear and unambiguous. It is equally clear that the Management 's position is consistent with the terms of that Agreement.
Against that background the Court is fully satisfied that the conclusions reached by the Rights Commissioner are correct and that her recommendation is sound. Accordingly the Court affirms the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th September, 2005______________________
todChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.