FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL AMBULANCE SERVICE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Reduced Earnings For 'Class 11' Paramedics
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 9 April 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 20 June 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking financial redress for lost or reduced earnings arising from a delay in the appointments of the Claimants to the role of Paramedic in 2011.
2. The Union believes that the National Ambulance Service has already taken some responsibility for the impact of the delayed appointments when they agreed to issue an amendment to the Transfer Policy.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Workers are seeking to place a liability on the Employer in respect of events which occurred prior to any employment relationship being in place.
2. The claim must be seen as a cost increasing claim and therefore precluded under the PSA and PSSA.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The matter before the Court involves a claim for compensation for the fact that that the appointment of the Claimants from a panel was later than it might have been had other events not intervened. The Claimants contend that the fact that the date of appointment was later than it might have been is unfair.
The events which contributed to a later date of appointment derived from a decision of the academic provider of education to set fresh qualification requirements in June 2010 after the formation of a panel of potential appointees in 2009. That decision of the academic provider was taken independently of the HSE.
The result of that decision was to disqualify the Claimants, who had been placed on a panel in 2009, from participation on the education programme which is an essential initial event following appointment as a paramedic.
There followed a complaint and subsequent appeals through the processes set down in the Code of Practice of the Commission for Public Service Appointments. That appeal procedure was initiated after June 2010 and concluded in early 2011 and the Claimants were recruited in May 2011. The claimants submit that the appeal procedure was lengthy and consequently unfair.
The Court notes that the events complained of arose prior to the Claimants appointment as paramedic staff of the HSE. The Court also notes that any impact arising from the decision of the academic institution was, in 2010 and 2011, dealt with through the pre-recruitment arrangements overseen on a statutory basis by the Commission for Public Service Appointments (CPSA). The Court notes that there is no submission before it that the complaint and appeal procedure was conducted other than properly or in accordance with the Code. In any event the Court has no function in reviewing adherence to the Code.
The Court notes that the timing of events has had an impact upon the Claimants’ subsequent earnings. That impact primarily flows from the fact that the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (FEMPI) legislation had effect on staff in the HSE with effect from 1stJanuary 2011 and the Claimants were not appointed until May 2011. The within matter relates to the effect of events which occurred eight years before the hearing of the Court.
The Court can recognise the sense of frustration on the part of the Claimants but must conclude that all matters associated with recruitment to the HSE fall to be considered in accordance with the Code of the CPSA and were so dealt with prior to the appointment of the Claimants to the staff of the HSE. The Court is asked to recommend compensation for a delay in appointment of the Claimants caused by the exercise of the procedures set down in that Code and in particular to recommend compensation for the negative effects of FEMPI legislation for persons appointed after 1stJanuary 2011.
The Court does not recommend concession of the within claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
MK______________________
24 June 2019Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.