Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Paramedic Supervisor

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-00016167-001

06/12/2017

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

CA-00016996-001

24/01/2018

The claimant has been acting in the role of Paramedic Supervisor for 6 years and was seeking to have his position made permanent and fulltime. The National Service had sought expressions of interest in the role of Paramedic Supervisor in 2013 – it was described as an experiential learning opportunity for a defined period of 6 months without the accrual of pay or any other entitlements. The claimant was offered the opportunity in the Northwest Region – it was submitted that the offer was based on merit by virtue of it being on foot of his position on a Paramedic Supervisor panel through the national recruitment process. The claimant took the position up for the defined period of 6 months when according to the specifications for the position the experiential learning opportunity expired – on the 6th Oct.2013. It was submitted that from that date to a current date the claimant has fulfilled the role of Paramedic Supervisor in an acting capacity. The claimant’s grievance regarding remuneration for this acting period was upheld. However, the claimant’s grievance regarding regularisation of his position was not. It was contended that the position the claimant was filling since 2013 was “an established Paramedic Supervisor’s Post and if due process and natural justice was applied the continued utilisation of the Claimant’s services in an ad hoc temporary manner would not be continuous to this day”. It was advanced that regularisation is possible given the claimant’s position on the Paramedic Supervisor’s Panel and the fact that the panel was extended until further notice and the claimant was never informed of the cessation of that panel. It was contended that the collective agreement being relied upon by the respondent dated the 14th August 2017 can have no retrospective effect. It was submitted that the respondent delayed for over 11 months in finalising Stage 3 of the claimant’s grievance on regularisation. It was submitted that the claimant was entitled to be treated the same as another colleague at another location who was in similar circumstances but who was regularised.

The respondent asserted that the claimant had no right to regularisation established - it was submitted that while IMPACT had negotiated a regularisation package under the Haddington Road Agreement for employees holding long term acting position, SIPTU did not establish regularisation for the claimant’s grade. It was submitted that it had been agreed nationally with SIPTU that the existing panels would be stood down to enable all candidates including those who had not submitted for the experiential learning programme to compete for Lead EMT posts. It was submitted that the normal lifetime of a panel is 2 years and there was no history of extended the life time of the claimant’s panel for 8 years. The respondent submitted minutes of the National Working Group into evidence and furnished a copy of the adjudication decision of August 2017 which provided for the closure of the outstanding EMT panels.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective position of the parties. On the basis of the evidence presented it appears that the circumstances of the claimant and other long term acting Supervisor Paramedics may have been overlooked in the adjudication process that led to the closure of the longstanding panels. While I fully acknowledge that the claimant and his union made very compelling arguments for the regularisation of the claimant’s position, I have no jurisdiction to digress from the nationally agreed determinations of the Working Group. In the circumstances , I am recommending in full and final settlement of this dispute that the position of the claimant and his colleagues who have been acting – on the basis of their position on nationally recruited panels – for 6 years be referred back to the National Working Group with a view to a mutually acceptable formula being devised to cater for this group.