ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00004686

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/02/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Location of Hearing: Radisson Blu Hotel Cork

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Background

The claimant commenced employment with the respondent on the 8th October 2003 and became a permanent employee in April 2007 working as a porter in the medical records department. In July 2008 his post was re classified as a Clerical Officer Grade. The claimant applied for coding posts in both 2008 and 2009 and he was unsuccessful on both occasions. The claimant applied for a temporary post of HIPE Coder, grade IV in February 2014 to cover a maternity leave vacancy. Interviews were conducted and the claimant was placed second on the panel. In March 2015 the successful candidate resigned the post and returned to her original post. The claimant felt that he should have been offered the position and he wrote to Human resources and he received a reply stating that it was not feasible to put someone into the post for a period due to the specialised training required, and that there was no CEO approval for the 2nd Maternity leave cover coming up. In September 2015 another Temporary Assistant Staff Officer (Grade IV) HIPE Coder was advertised, however on this occasion the position advertised for the candidate to have acquired training /experience in HIPE Coding which eliminated the claimant.

The claimant raised a grievance which was not upheld.

Union argument

The claimant knocked on the door of the respondent requesting to be trained and upgraded. It was submitted that the respondent believed the claimant to be a good employee and placed him 2nd on a panel. The claimant has offered to work in the HIPE department for free in order to become an eligible candidate for the next post which may arise as a HIPE Coder.

The union are seeking that a willing employee to be afforded opportunities for training which is not unreasonable

Respondent position

They have acted in accordance with its recruitment policy. Panels under the recruitment policy are normally active for 12 months and by the second vacancy arose the claimant’s panel had expired. The Training period for an HIPE coders takes a minimum 6 months to achieve basic proficiency and up to 2 years to become fully trained. The respondent's income stream changed to ABF funding where the proficiency of HIPE coder has a direct impact on the level of funding received by them.

Findings

Both parties made written and verbal submissions at the hearing

I find that I accept the respondent's position both in relation to funding and the management of services. I find however that where the respondent has a willing employee that is prepared to make sacrifices to advance him/herself then there is a need for the respondent to make all reasonable efforts to ensure that opportunities where possible are provided to that employee.

Recommendation :

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to this dispute

I find that I cannot support the claimant's complaint, however I recommend that the respondent keep an open mind that where ever possible and within reason the claimant is facilitated with opportunities for training

Jim O Connell

Adjudicating Officer

Dated:   25^th April 2017