Worker

Employer

Parties

A Carpenter

A Healthcare Provider

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute    seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13    of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00010789-001

12/04/2017

The worker   commenced employment in May 1974 and disputes the manner in which a more   senior post was filled both temporarily and permanently.

The workers detailed that he was engaged as a carpenter   but had provided cover for the foreman over many years when he was absent and   that when the foreman retired in March 2012 he was asked to cover the   position which he did. While he also   conducted his role as carpenter during this time, he ensured that all   maintenance requests were dealt with and completed. This arrangement continued until Feb 2015   when he and others were called into a meeting and advised that another   employee would fill the foreman’s post for 3 months while the position was   open posted.

The worker raised a grievance dated 13^th Feb   2015 setting out his upset that he was not filling the post in a temporary   capacity and quoted HR Circular 17/2013 which details that the most senior   person should have taken up the post for the 3-month period. The post was filled on a temporary basis   until June 2016 and while the worker applied for the permanent role he was   advised that he did not meet the eligibility criteria.

Discussions were ongoing between the worker’s   representative and the employer regarding a number of issues, and while there   was resolution of some of these issues, the worker’s representative wrote to   the employer on 5^th December 2016 detailing that compensation   would have to be addressed. The   employer responded that the person who filled the post was somebody with an electrical   background which the worker did not. However,   the worker highlighted that since the incumbent took up his permanent role,   an electrical contractor has been engaged thus this electrical background was   no longer necessary.

The employer pointed out that prior to December 2014 there   were two Maintenance Manager positions but when one of the Maintenance   Managers left his position it was decided to restructure. It was deemed necessary that the vacant   post would become that of Foreman with an electrical qualification a   necessity. This was approved and the   post was advertised with a closing date of 12^th February 2016 and   as there was a delay in advertising the post a decision was made to fill it   on a temporary capacity.

The worker is employed as a Craftsman and when he queried   the mechanism for filling the post and communicated that he had worked in the   role previously, Mr A, the Building and Maintenance Manager, investigated   this and received confirmation that the worker had not previously filled this   role. While the worker applied for the   permanent post he was unsuccessful as he was not suitably qualified for the   role as he lacked an electrical qualification. The worker subsequently appealed the   decision and also emailed Mr A on 5^th December 2016 outlining his   disappointment at not being included in the filling of the temporary foreman   role.

The employer outlined that the worker was not suitable for   the temporary post as to fill this role the person needed “the required necessary qualifications”   in line with HSE Circular 17/2013 and the worker did not have the required   electrical qualification. While an   electrical contractor has been engaged also, it is still necessary for the   Foreman to have that qualification also to support the area.

Having   given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions from both the   employer and the worker, there was nothing presented to me that would suggest   anything other than that an electrical qualification was necessary for the   role. I note that this decision was   taken based on what it appears to have been the needs of the   organisation. Furthermore, it is clear   from HSE Circular 17/2013 that while the temporary role should be filled   based on “most senior suitable”, it   also requires that this person should have the “required necessary qualifications” which I read as being, in this   instance case, an electrical qualification.   The worker did not have this   qualification and therefore, would have been unqualified for the temporary   role or the permanent role.

However,   I find it regretful that the employer did not show more sensitivity in   informing the worker that he was unsuitable for the temporary role. The worker has considerable service of over   forty years and despite the employer detailing that the worker had not   fulfilled the role of Foreman on occasion, I note that the letter dated 11^th   February 2005 acknowledges that the worker had acted as Foreman during the absence of the previous Maintenance   Foreman. The worker, therefore, deserved   that this should have been acknowledged and his grievance should have been   resolved more speedily.

With that in mind, I recommend that the employer pays the worker   the sum of €750.00 in compensation for the distress and upset caused and in   recognition of the unique circumstances of this case and that this should not be used or relied upon in any other forum and is unique   to this employee.

I recommend that the employer pays the worker the sum of   €750.00 in compensation for the distress and upset caused and in recognition of the unique   circumstances of this case and that this should not be used or relied upon in any other forum and is unique   to this employee.

Industrial Relations Act, Failure to follow procedure,   grievance, temporary appointment