Health Service Executive v A Worker (Represented by Inmo)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 November 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 11 JIEC 0102
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Docket Number: ADJ-00011398 CA-00015259-001,DECISION NO.LCR21810,FULL RECOMMENDATION
• Date: 01 November 2018

Labour Court

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/18/229

DECISION NO.LCR21810

ADJ-00011398 CA-00015259-001

PARTIES:

HSE

and

A Worker (Represented by Inmo)

DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms Jenkinson

Employer Member: Ms Doyle

Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation ADJ-00011398

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The case before the Court concerns the Claimant's appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation ADJ-00011398. The dispute relates specifically to the Claimant's claim for regrading of her role from CNM3 to ADON band 1 retrospectively from October 2014 when the Claimant officially took up her current post in the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC). The Employer rejects the Claimant's claim. The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 4th July 2018, the Adjudication Officer issued his Recommendation as follows:

“Having considered the arguments presented at the hearing and from reading the submissions presented by both parties I must agree with the Respondent. To do otherwise could, as pointed out by the Respondent, create a dangerous precedent and would be unfair .

For the reasons outlined above the complaint fails” .

3 On the 13th August, 2018 the Claimant appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th October, 2018.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

4 3. 1. The Union on behalf of its member contends that the Claimant should not be at a financial loss as a result of her promotion.

5 2. The Union maintains that the Claimant is carrying out a national role like her counterpart who is appropriately classified as ADON Band 1.

6 3. The Claimant is seeking retrospective regrading of her role from CNM3 to ADON Band 1.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

7 4. 1. The Claimant competed successfully and was promoted to the position of ADON Band 11 which was clearly advertised by the Employer.

8 2. The Claimant could only be regraded to the position of ADON Band 1 through open and transparent competition conducted by the National Recruitment Service.

9 3. The Employer is not in a position to concede the Claimant's claim.

DECISION:

10 This is an appeal by an employee of an Adjudication Officer's Recommendation which found against her claim to be appointed to the salary scale applicable to ADON Band I when...