FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE SOUTH - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY PNA) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Unfair treatment.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that a colleague was unfairly assigned to a vacant promotional post. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 7th May, 2013, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th February, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker was unfairly denied access to the acting position.
2. The manner in which the position was allocated was neither fair or transparent.
3.This caused the Worker a loss of earnings and hindered access to the position on a permanent basis.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer has acted in a fair and transparent manner at all times.
2. The Employer acted in accordance with Government controls on recruitment and promotions.
3. The Employer's priority was to maintain the delivery of a safe and quality service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds it extraordinary that while the events giving rise to this dispute arose in 2007 and 2009 the matter was only referred to the Court in 2013. There appears to be no reasonable explanation for this inordinate delay. On that basis alone the Court would be reluctant to recommend any redress in this case.
It seems to the Court that the procedure applied by the HSE in this case in making a long-term acting appointment was in line with established practice. Furthermore, in the absence of any collective agreement specifying how positions are to be filled it is for the employer to make a decision in any particular case.
For all of these reasons the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th February, 2014______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.