ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00018625

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Paramedic	A public body

Representatives

Martina Weir SIPTU-Workers Rights Centre

Employee Relations Manager

Complaint(s):

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-00023924-001	07/12/2018

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/04/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Background:

Following the expiration of a promotional panel the complainant is seeking to have an experiential placement which he believes will be of assistance to him in future competitions.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

In 2008 the complainant was successful in gaining a place on a panel from which Leading Emergency Medical Technician (LEMT) vacancies would be filled. The panel was set up in 2008 and expired in 2017. The members of this panel were offered an opportunity to avail of a period of working in a supervisory role on an experiential basis. Due to his personal circumstances at the time the complainant declined this offer in the belief that it would be offered again in the future. However, the 5 candidates who took up the roles were subsequently retained in the positions. The complainant was therefore denied the opportunity to avail of this experience, an essential requirement for promotion. He is seeking to avail of the 6 month experience opportunity as afforded to his colleagues.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The facts of the case are not in dispute. The process for recruiting LEMT’s was agreed nationally in 2015. The previous practice of the experiential assignments was abolished at this stage and existing panels were abolished in 2017. It was agreed that future fillings, including acting positions would have to go through the national recruitment process. It should be noted that experience as a manager is not a requirement in order to compete for the post of LEMT.

Findings and Conclusions:

The agreement concluded in 2015 was made between the complainant’s union and the respondent. The abolition of the system of experiential placements was in my view a retrograde step, however it was agreed between the parties. It is therefore open to the union to seek to amend this agreement if it so wishes. I do not believe that it is appropriate to make exceptions to this agreement without considering the possible consequences. It is the complainant’s position that management experience is a requirement in order to get promoted. This is denied by the respondent and I note that the complainant was previously successful in getting on to a panel for LEMT without having had management experience. While management experience may not be a requirement it would undoubtedly be of benefit to an applicant for promotion, and to afford the complainant the experience now would place him at a potential advantage over other candidates for LEMT roles in the future which was not envisaged by the national agreement. Accordingly, I do not recommend that the claim be upheld.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend that the claim is not upheld.

Dated: 17th September 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry

Key Words:

National agreement and abolition of panels for promotion.