FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : THE COOMBE HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Procedure for filling Night Telephonist vacancy
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members in relation to the filling of a night telephonist vacancy at the Coombe Women and Infants University Hospital, Dublin. The position was initially advertised in July 2009 and was confined internally to existing hospital staff. After a series of interviews all candidates were deemed unsuitable and the position remained vacant. After a second series of interviews comprising the original interviewing panel and the majority of the original applicants, the candidates were again deemed unsuccessful and the position continued to remain vacant. Management then proposed to advertise the position externally however the Union objected and the permanent filling of the position was suspended. Both parties to the dispute referred to an agreement which was negotiated in 1983. The principles of this agreement, in brief, state that permanent positions will initially be advertised internally to eligible staff. The agreement also states that if there are no applications from eligible staff or should all internal applicants be deemed unsuitable for the position then the position will be advertised externally. The position is currently being filled by temporary agency staff and the Union is seeking the re-advertisement of the post internally with an independent nominee on the interviewing panel. Management dispute this.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 30th March 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st September 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Applicants were given insufficient feedback after the interview process. Members raised their concerns in relation to the interviewing process and sought more detailed feedback, however, this was not provided.
2. Applicants were not given the opportunity to work in the role prior to the interviewing process. The Union therefore contends that it is unacceptable for applicants to be deemed unsuitable for the position on the grounds of having insufficient experience in the role.
3. Management has refused to re-interview the original candidates with an independent body on the interviewing panel.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The principles of the 1983 agreement state that the position may be advertised externally should no internal applicant be successful in their application.
2. Due to budgetary, resource and time constraints amongst others, Management is not in a position to provide on-the-job training for the position prior to the interview stage.
3. The temporary filling of the post is causing difficulty for Management and employees alike. Management contends that the solution is to have the post filled as soon as possible through external recruitment, as outlined in the 1983 agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case.
In all the circumstances of the case and in the best interests of both parties, the Court, on an exceptional basis and uniquely on the facts before it, recommends that the vacancy be re-advertised internally and that the applicants be interviewed by a new panel, appointed by hospital management and comprised of people who have had no involvement in this matter to date.
If no successful candidate emerges from this process the Union should accept such an outcome as being entirely consistent with and envisaged by the 1983 Agreement.
The Hospital would then be free to proceed to the next stage of the Agreement and advertise the post externally.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
17th September 2010______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.