ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007799

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Chargehand Carpenter	A Hospital

Complaint(s):

Act	Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00010348-001	22/03/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/06/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 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).

1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Respondent Hospital operates over two locations, the principal site being in Dublin 8, the other, a satellite facility where the Complainant is based, being in a West County Dublin location.

In April 2016 the position of General Maintenance Foreman for the entire Hospital Group, across both sites, was advertised. The Complainant, being based in the West Dublin location, did not become aware of the vacancy. Accordingly he did not apply, although eminently qualified, and the post was filled externally to the Hospital.

He contends that the Hospital failed to ensure that he, working on a location away from the main Hospital, was informed of the vacancy in good time to apply.

In addition in oral evidence he maintained that the Hospital management, when shortlisting applicants to be interviewed, should have noticed that he, an employee of some 31 years service in the Maintenance Department , had not applied and at the very least inquired if he was aware of the vacancy.

Accordingly the Complainant felt that he had been disadvantaged and should, be either regraded to a Foreman position or given a lump sum in compensation for suffering disadvantage.

2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Foreman vacancy was advertised in keeping with well established policies regarding Recruitment (supplied in evidence). It is accepted that the Complainant at the time involved did not have an E mail account to receive notices electronically. However the vacancy was posted, in line with normal practice, on staff Notice Boards in all locations.

There was absolutely no effort or attempt made to conceal the vacancy from the Complainant. It is unrealistic to suggest that he was disadvantaged in any manner and merits any compensation either by way of a regrading or a lump sum.

3: Findings and Conclusions:

The physical distance between the two sites is approximately 12 kilometres or 7.5 miles on a very main road into the city. It is a direct route. The two sites are part of the same Group and there is considerable interaction between the sites on a daily basis. The Advertisement was placed from the 29^th April 2016 to the 15^th May 2016. This equates to almost three weeks and must have been the subject of staff gossip. Vacancies for General Maintenance Foremen arise very infrequently and it is impossible to accept that the Complainant was not aware of the vacancy, being as he was a key member of the maintenance team.

If there is any cause for complaint it is that the Management executive in overall charge of the Maintenance Department did not follow up with the Complainant as to why he had not applied. The Complainant had some 31 years service in the Maintenance area and his non application must have seemed unusual. A Phone call, of inquiry, would not have gone amiss.

Accordingly I Recommend that

The Complainant accepts that he has no stateable case and the claim is dismissed.
The Hospital indicated during the oral hearing that they had strengthened their procedures regarding the advertisement of vacancies in the satellite location. I recommend that this should be monitored frequently.
In view of my comments regarding the lack of a phone call or inquiry at the time of the shortlisting I suggest ( not a Recommendation under the IR Act of 1969) that the Hospital HR Department make a once off voluntary donation of € 50 Euro to the Society of St Vincent de Paul.

Decision:

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

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Summary of Recommendation. See Section 3 above for detailed arguments.

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

CA-00010348-001

Claim is dismissed. However, it is Recommended that the Respondent monitor the publication of Vacancies in satellite locations.

It is suggested, (outside of the IR Acts) , that the employer make a small (€50) voluntary donation to charity.

Dated: 26^th July 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee