FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : HSE/HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE/LOUTH COUNTY HOSPITAL DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No ADJ-00028064. This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal by the Worker (a Clinical Nurse Manager) from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00028064, dated 19 July 2021) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 26 August 2021. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 26 May 2022. The Dispute relates to the decision of Louth County Hospital on 3 December 2019 to rescind an offer of employment as a CNM2 made to the Worker on 25 November 2019, which offer had been accepted by the Worker and on the basis of which she resigned her then post as CNM1 in another hospital. The Adjudication Officer held in favour of the Worker and recommended she be paid €5,000.00 in compensation “for the wrong done to her”. Both Parties submitted very comprehensive written submissions to the Court. They aread idemin relation to the material facts. Furthermore, the Employer’s representative conceded that the Employer had not handled the recruitment process in accordance with best practice. The representative stated that the Employer accepted the Recommendation made by the Adjudication Officer although it regarded the level of compensation he had recommended as being somewhat on the high side, in the circumstances. The Worker submits that the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation does not adequately compensate her for the losses she says she accrued as a result of the Employer’s conduct in this matter. She requested the Court to direct the Employer to grant her the position which had been offered to her in 2019 and to increase the level of compensation. She presented a schedule of expenses totalling almost €14,000.00 she submits she incurred as a consequence of the Employer’s decision to rescind its offer of employment. Those expenses consisted largely of additional travelling costs and costs associated with her domestic arrangements. Discussion and Decision: As the appeal is essentially confined to remedy and the Parties, as indicated above, aread idemin relation to the material facts, it is not necessary to set out the chain of events that culminated in the Employer’s decision to rescind the offer of employment it had made to the Worker in any greater detail than has already been done. Having reviewed the reasoning of the Adjudication Officer and having considered the Parties’ written and oral submission to the Court, the Court finds no reason to vary the quantum of compensation recommended by the Adjudication Officer. Neither does the Court recommend concession of the Worker’s request to be appointed to the CNM2 post in question. The Court so decides.
NOTE |
