Poots In Trade Unionist Exclusion Row

Health Minister Edwin Poots has been the centre of further controversy, following a judge's ruling that he excluded trade unionists from a public body based on their status as union members.

The announcement by Mr Justice Treacy follows a court ruling earlier in 2013 that the Minister had acted unlawfully by failing to consider a senior trade unionist who had applied for a post.

In a case taken by trade union NIPSA and former General Secretary John Corey, the High Court ruled that Mr Poots had acted unlawfully.

In 2011 the Department of Health invited applicants for appointment as a non-executive Trade Union Representative Member on the Social Care Council.

The union nominated Mr Corey for the role but, despite a recommendation from a Public Appointments Panel, the Minister refused to make the appointment.

In the judgement Mr Justice Treacy said: "The clear terms of the published notice and the policy in place at the time the notice was published generated public law obligations which were not complied with in the present case.

"In my view the public law obligations generated by the published notice remained in place and were unlawfully departed from by the Minister.

"What is not lawful is for a Minister to decide privately on a new policy and then apply it without warning to an existing recruitment process whereby it may result in unfair injury to the prospects of candidates who have based their applications upon publicly promulgated guidance which reflects a different policy altogether. Such un-notified policy changes are not consistent with good and transparent recruitment processes and they conflict with legitimate expectations arising from information published by the relevant Department which remains in the public domain."

Following the ruling, Assistant Secretary Kevin McCabe said: "We welcome the Court’s findings which fully vindicate our decision to challenge the Minister’s refusal to appoint a trade union representative to the Social Care Council."

Mr Corey added: "While I was the individual nominated for the appointment, this Court case was not about me personally. Instead we were challenging the unfair Ministerial decision to exclude trade union representatives from being considered for the appointment.

"Unfortunately this is another example where the operation of the public appointments process has been found wanting. As well as the need for a full and fair remedy in this particular case, I would expect all those with responsibility for the public appointments process in Northern Ireland to examine this judgement carefully to ensure there is no repetition of such unlawful treatment of candidates for other appointments."

Mr Poots' actions follow recent criticism over his decision to legally challenge the lifting of a ban on gay men donating blood.

Sinn Féin MLA and chair of the Health Committee Maeve McLaughlin said: "There is growing concern about the manner in which the Health Minister Edwin Poots is carrying out his duties as Health Minister.

"The release of information on the court ruling in March that Edwin Poots had acted unlawfully in his failure to consider a senior Trade Union representative for a position of the Social Care Council has again cast a serious doubt about the capacity of the Health Minister to act as a Minister for everyone.

"36% of employees within the North are Trade Union members. This is a significant section of our community who will now be viewing the decision by the Health Minister as discriminating against them as a sector."

"I intend to ensure that the Minister is brought once again to the Health Committee and challenged about the implementation of policy decisions on the basis of his private and personal opinions."

Ulster Unionist Health spokesperson Roy Beggs said: "In the UK, ministers do not have absolute power. They must act lawfully and follow the due process when appointing individuals to public bodies.

"It must be of concern to every fair-minded individual that the Minister has been accused by a judge in his detailed ruling of breaching the legal appointment process, of 'frustrating' public law obligations and of excluding trade unionists and their members from appointment to certain public bodies on the basis of their status or class.

"With yet another detailed court ruling against Edwin Poots, his position is becoming untenable."

(IT/MH)