Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Paramedic

Public Body

Representatives

TonyGregg

Graham Finlay

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-00023464-001

23/11/2018

The Complainant seeks to be regularised in his post in his previous location.

The Complainant was successful in a competition for the role of Paramedic Supervisor in 2009 and was placed on a panel for same.  In 2014 he was assigned to a vacant position of Paramedic Supervisor when Mr F resigned and the Complainant was placed in the location.  He considered that his appointment was validated by his position on the supervisor panel and he had not been informed otherwise by the Respondent.  He performed his duties without any problems from 2014 and he received certain assurances that his position was to be regularised.  In 2017 he was advised to apply for advertised posts of Leading Paramedics.  He was concerned if he did not apply he would be excluded from having any claim to his current position.  He performed well and secured a place of 16^th on the panel.  Unfortunately for him, three other candidates achieved a higher panel position and he was displaced to another station.   He lodged a grievance but it was not upheld.  During the grievance hearing he found out that the panel of 2009 had been abandoned in 2011 and again activated in 2014 only to be abandoned again in 2017.  The Complainant claims that his tenure as acting supervisor in his desired location was within these active panel dates and the position he held should have been filled permanently at that time.                                                                                            The Complainant submits that the Respondent appointed him to the post from his successful inclusion to the 2009 panel and over the following years put forward no objection to his appointment.  He therefore submits that his appointment to the position should be formalised.

In the context of collective agreements reached with the Trade Union under the auspices of the WRC, the Respondent is committed to the filling of all approved relevant vacancies by the utilisation of current panels.  In this regard, the Complainant is now a permanent Supervisor in the Service having successfully competed in the 2018 competition.  His previous temporary position was made on a specified purpose basis and ceased when the permanent appointment was made.  As was the case with 40 other temporary acting arrangements, no permanent appointment could accrue and the person would revert back unless promoted from the recruitment campaign.  The filling of the positions is the subject of a collective national agreement and this position has been upheld in Adjudication and Labour Court decisions (Adj-0001823, Adj-00008235, LRC 21783).   The Respondent is not in a position to both concede the individual claim here, while at the same time seeking to honour the collective national agreement between the parties regarding the filling of approved positions across the Service.  Concession of this local claim for regularisation would therefore in effect set aside the terms and provisions of the national collective agreement and have a wider affect than one individual case.  

The Complainant was placed on a panel in 2009 and was temporarily filling a position in his preferred location.    Having occupied it for so long, it is understandable that he had expectations of filling the position on a permanent basis.   However, the longstanding collective bargaining process that was in train regarding panels and the filling of vacancies concluded in 2017.  It was concluded that the past panels were expired and that the recruitment process would be immediately expedited for the permanent filling of positions.  The Complainant was successful in his application to be placed on the panel resulting from this agreement.  However, another person reached a higher place on the panel and was placed in the Complainant’s preferred location.  While I have every sympathy for the Complainant, the case is similar to those found in various Adjudication Recommendations as cited by the Respondent.     The Labour Court in LCR21783 confirmed that the rules governing the operation of recruitment panels must be upheld.  Likewise, in this instant case I find that to undermine the rules governing the operation of the recruitment panels would give rise to repercussive effects and I therefore am unable to make a recommendation favourable to the Complainant.    

Recruitment panels.