Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Paramedic

A Health Service Provider

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00012903-001

01/08/2017

The respondent employs the complainant as a paramedic. The dispute concerns an allegation that the complainant was disadvantaged by a campaign conducted in June 2015 which sought expressions of interest in the supervisory grade ‘for experiential purposes’. The parties made written and oral submission to the hearing.

The complainant submits that the respondent’s stated policy position was that such recruitment would not attract any additional payment provided the appointment was for a period of less than three months. Furthermore, he was aware that it was bound by a policy of ‘fair and transparent appointment processes’. He was informed by the relevant manager in July 2015 that the duration of the position would be open and contingent on other developments. Ultimately, he did not apply and he took a local grievance when it became apparent that the respondent breached its own stated policies and paid an acting allowance to all those who applied. It is understood that all applicants were successful. His grievance was denied on the basis that he had the opportunity to apply and that he would have sustained no loss. The final decision maker thought that the matter should not have been heard in the grievance procedure at all.                                                                                                 The use of the phrase ‘for experiential purposes’ was an attempt by the respondent to circumvent its own policies and the basic rules of openness and fairness. This was a promotional position.      The complainant petitions for a payment equal to the amount of acting allowance that he would have received had he applied and been successful.

The respondent submits that there was no attempt here to undermine the complainant in any way. The complainant has highlighted that he did not apply for the position as there was no additional payment. The same applied to many. Indeed, there was the collective process at national level to regularise those in acting roles during this period. The trade union took up the cudgel for individuals in this role parallel to these discussions and was successful. The overarching issues concerning posts in the service were resolved through conciliation and arbitration in 2017.                                        There was no intention to prolong the canvass beyond three months. It was not envisaged that any payments would be made. There was a huge pressure on the service at the time. The payments arose by way of agreements made through the collective process.  

Noting the stated position of the respondent at 8th of July 2015 in respect of expected prolonged time frame and the obvious implications I am intrigued as to why this wasn’t fully explored and pursued through the trade union or directly by the complainant at that time. Of course, one of those obvious implications is that management was aware that the time frame would exceed the three months. But this may be somewhat speculative and the policy as such sets the 3-month limit at which point presumably an alternative arrangement must be concluded. This is in effect what happened and it would have been the subject of trade union input and formal agreement.

My recommendation in this matter is that the complainant should accept the conclusion of the grievance procedure.