Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Employee

Employer

Representatives

Brendan Flynn PNA

No attendance

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-00024186-001

17/12/2018

The employer was notified of the dispute by way of a notification by the WRC on 19 December 2018 to a named manager at the base where the employee works. As there was no response objecting to a hearing of the dispute by an adjudicator, notification of the date, time and location of the hearing was issued to the same named manager on 20 September 2019. The employee stated at the hearing that any post received for the named manager at the address given is forwarded to him. On this basis the hearing proceeded. Following the hearing, contact was made by HR HSE regarding the notification which they had not received and were unaware of the hearing until after the event. They were advised to contact the WRC, giving the correct contact details for any future communications regarding this case.

The employee in this case is employed as an Operational LEMT since 2001. In 2017 another LEMT at the same base employed in a non -operational role retired. In effect the employee is seeking a transfer to the non - operational role. The employer decided to fill the second LEMT position as an operational role, by a recruitment process. A person was appointed but left after five weeks. In 2018 the employee used the internal grievance procedure. His grievance regarding the filling of the vacant post was rejected at stage 2 where it was recorded that management intended to fill a LEMT post through a competition(this is the post filled for five weeks). The appeal to stage 3 was rejected by reference to recommendations of an adjudicator of the WRC and Labour Court where both referred to the requirement to use the agreed recruitment processes to fill vacancies.

The dispute was received in the WRC on 17/12/2018

The employee referred to what is known as the ‘Hughes Agreement of 2003’ which required that LEMT posts be filled on a 1:5 basis. It was submitted that even if an additional LEMT post is filled at the location, given the number of positions at the location, the 1:5 ratio will not have been met and the non-operational role will remain vacant. In any event, no needs assessment was carried out regarding the ongoing need for the non-operational post and this post remains vacant. Reference was made to section b. of the circular 17/2103 and the requirement for   a needs assessment which refers to risks and patient safety. The employee is not aware of any such assessments being conducted in relation to the vacant non-operational role. The role of the non-operational LEMT was office based mainly and the employee provided cover for the postholder when required. A letter from the previous postholder confirmed that the employee in dispute provided cover for his role for sick and annual leave and while he was absent on a project in another location from 2014.

While the employer was not present, the stage 2 and 3 grievance decisions referred to the recruitment procedures for filling vacant posts were submitted by the employee and considered in arriving at conclusions.

The issue here is that a post of LEMT which was vacant by reference to the ratio established in   the 2003 was filled using the recruitment procedures. There is no valid issue regarding either adherence to the 2003 agreement or the use of the recruitment procedures when the post to be filled was an operational LEMT. The process outlined in 17/2013 is clearly designed to ensure that posts are not merely left vacant and how they can be filled on a temporary or permanent basis. A permanent need for a second LEMT post was identified. Neither the agreement of 2003 or circular 17/2013 can be read as meaning that the role of a post at LEMT can never change. If the post was a non-operational post a request for a transfer to that post may have been justified or at least merited consideration, given that it is at the same grade. However, once the post was to be filled on an operational basis, the question of a transfer does not arise, and the employer correctly used the recruitment procedure to fill the post and the employee understands that they will do so again now that the post is vacant again, which is also the correct approach

What the employee was entitled to, was a reason why the vacant post was to be reorganised, what if any implications there are for his roster, cover arrangements between the two post holders and the distribution of LEMT work between him and the new appointee. It is not clear if this occurred and, in any event, some of this discussion will be required again when a new appointment is made at LEMT in the location.

Based on the available information, I do not recommend concession of the claim that the LEMT post vacant since 2017 must be filled on a non-operational basis , or that terms of Circular 17/2013 or the 2003 agreement have been breached by the decision to replace a non-operational role with an operational LEMT role. I do recommend that there be discussions with the employee in this case regarding the implications of the change for his role, rosters, cover arrangements-if any, arising from the decision to replace the non-operational role with an operational LEMT in the location.

Filling of LEMT post, recruitment procedures, adherence to agreement and circular-national ambulance service