FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST JAMES'S HOSPITAL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTISTS ASSOCIATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Hearing arising from AD0623.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is that a worker who has been employed at the Endocrinology Laboratory of St James's Hospital since 1974 and is a Senior Medical Scientist in charge of that Laboratory should be upgraded to the position of Chief Medical Scientist under the Report of the Expert Group on Medical Laboratory Technician /Technologist Grades. The dispute was the subject of a Labour Court investigation in March, 2006. In AD 0623 which issued on the 3rd April, 2006 the Court decided as follows:
"............ It appears to the Court, however, that the reality of the Union's claim is that Endocrinology should be designated as a department within the Hospital. Paragraphs 50, 51 and 52 of the Report sets out the procedures which should be followed in processing a claim for the recognition of a separate department. The Court is of the view that a more appropriate mechanism of processing the Union's claim would be for it to utilise the procedure referred to at paragraph 52 of the Report. In the event of the discussions envisaged in that paragraph not producing an agreement, the matter should be referred to the Court for arbitrations in accordance with paragraph 52. The Court further recommends that the parties agree an indicative time frame of three months for the completion of the discussions between the management and staff sides. "
The parties subsequently held a number of meetings but agreement was not reached. The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 13th April, 2006. A Court hearing was held on the 27th October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant qualifies for upgrading to Chief Medical Scientist on the basis of the Report of the Expert Group, on the basis of his qualifications, the funding provisions of the Report and precedents already in existence within the Health Service.A number of new appointments have been made in recent times.
2. The Union does not accept Management's assertion that it cannot fund the Claimant's upgrading.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Endocrinology discipline is not recognised by the Expert Report or the Hospital as a separate Department and as such the Union's claim for an upgrade cannot be conceded on this basis. The Claimant is a Senior Medical Scientist in the Biochemistry Department, which department already has a Chief Medical Scientist.
2. The Hospital does not have the funding from Department of Health and Children to implement the upgrade sought. The Union has been informed that an external review will be conducted of the overall Laboratory Services conducted in the country. These may have significant implications for the way individual laboratories are structured going forward.
DECISION:
This is a follow up case to Labour Court Decision NO. AD0623, which heard an appeal against a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation concerning a claim for upgrading of an individual to the grade of Chief Medical Scientist, based on Report No 1 of the Medical Laboratory Service Review Group.
The Court recommended that further discussions should take place within the context of the Report to consider the possibility of appointing a Chief Medical Scientist to the Endocrinology Laboratory. The parties failed to reach agreement and the issue was referred back to the Court.
Having considered the positions of both parties following these discussions and in reflection of the duties, responsibilities and level of contribution made by the appellant in this case, the Court is of the view that the appellant is meritorious of the upgrade sought. Accordingly, the Court recommends that he should be upgraded to the position of Chief Medical Scientist with effect from 6th December, 2004.
The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is varied accordingly and the appeal is allowed.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd November, 2006______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.