Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89437 Case Number: LCR12621 Section / Act: S67 Parties: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND;LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION |
Claim by the Unions for an evaluation exercise on ambulance personnel in the Dublin Area of the Board.
Recommendation:
6. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
together with the further information supplied are of the view
that arrangements should be made to carry out a job evaluation
exercise to compare the role, duties and responsibilities of the
ambulance personnel in the Dublin area to those of staff of the
Dublin Fire Brigade (Firefighters and Controllers (Sub officers)
and such other staff within the Health Service as the parties may
agree are suitable for inclusion in the exercise.
The Court wish to make it clear that the Job Evaluation exercise
is for the purpose of establishing the comparison between the jobs
concerned in the evaluation.
Any issues arising as a consequence of the Job Evaluation exercise
should be dealt with in accordance with the normal industrial
relations procedures.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89437 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12621
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
(REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD)
AND
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions for an evaluation exercise on ambulance
personnel in the Dublin Area of the Board.
BACKGROUND:
2. Under the 1970 Health Act the Board is responsible for the
provision of the ambulance service within its area. This was
provided as follows:-
(a) Board's Loughlinstown Ambulance Base provided the ambulance
service (both emergency and non-emergency) for the South
County area and all '999' calls in this area were routed
through the base.
(b) Dublin Fire Brigade (on an agency basis) provided the
emergency ambulance service for the Dublin area and all
'999' calls were routed through its Headquarters in Tara
Street.
(c) Board's James's Street Ambulance base carried out all
non-emergency ambulance calls and general patient transport
facilities, cardiac ambulance calls and emergency calls
passed on from Dublin Fire Brigade.
During the Dublin Fire Brigade strike early in 1988, the Board
took over the control of '999' calls. At the end of this dispute
the Minister for Health set up a working party to advise on the
most appropriate communications for the provision of the ambulance
service. The working party recommended that, control of the '999'
calls should be routed to the Board's James's Street base for an
initial trial period of nine months and that the distribution of
ambulance calls between the Board and Dublin Fire Brigade should
remain unchanged. The group also recommended an implementation
date of 6th March, 1989. The James's Street base took over the
control of '999' calls in March, 1989. The control centre at
Loughlinstown base was closed in July, 1989 and ambulance crews at
Loughlinstown were allocated calls directly from James's Street
control centre from that date. The distribution of calls for
Loughlinstown, James's Street and the Dublin Fire Brigade remained
unchanged
3. A number of local level meetings took place between the
parties in January and February, 1989. At a meeting held on 24th
February, 1989, the Unions proposed that a Joint Working Party be
set up to examine the salary and workloads of the claimants. This
proposal was rejected by the Board. At a meeting held on 27th
February, 1989 the Unions proposed that the issue of a joint
working party should be referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court, and that after the outcome of these discussions
they should have the option of appointing an assessor to evaluate
the role and function of ambulance personnel (leading ambulancemen
(control duties), ambulance drivers, attendants). The Board
agreed to attend a conciliation conference in the Labour Court.
It was also prepared to accept the Unions proposal of an assessor
on the basis that the assessor would be appointed by the Unions to
perform a study for their side only and that the Board would not
be bound to accept any findings the assessor might issue. On 28th
April, 1989 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 15th
June, 1989 at which no agreement was reached and on 16th June,
1989 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 7th
September, 1989-the earliest date suitable to the parties. On 3rd
October, 1989 the parties sent a joint statement to the Court
containing information on relevant wage rates and qualifications
required of ambulance personnel.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board has stated that the normal method of dealing
with salary claims is for both sides to present their cases
before the Labour Court. However, in order to justify a
salary increase it is necessary to carry out an exercise on
the increased level of responsibilities and duties and
changing procedures as a result of the introduction of the new
service. Job evaluation is concerned with providing a firm
base on which conclusions on the relative worth of a job may
be reached. Job evaluation on its own is not sufficient in
establishing pay levels for jobs. However, an evaluation of
the relative worth of jobs serves as a useful starting point
in establishing pay relationships. The successful
implementation of job evaluation requires an initial consensus
and commitment in principle by both sides to make it work. It
is not possible to examine the changing role and impact of
recently agreed procedural and operational requirements
without utilising some kind of evaluation method.
4. 2. There has never been any examination of the role, duties
or responsibilities of ambulance personnel, although the Board
has accepted that there have been changes in the duties and
requirements of all staff in the delivery of the service. The
convention is for both employers and unions to use the
auspices of a joint working party to resolve difficult matters
such as this case. It is the normal practice in the health
and public services to use evaluation exercises in dealing
with claims from different grades. The Labour Court in a
number of recommendations has indicated that an agreed
evaluation exercise can resolve similar claims (details
supplied to the Court). The unions and workers have taken a
positive attitude to changes in the service to ensure that the
best service is available to the public without any
interruptions. It is only fair and proper that ambulance
personnel are allowed the same rights as other staff within
the same employment.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The transfer of control will not result in any extension
in the duties and responsibilities of ambulance drivers,
attendants or leading ambulancemen (control duties). In
relation to the latter, the Board accepts that the volume of
calls has increased but to cover this four extra staff have
been recruited to the James's Street control centre. In
addition, some routine record keeping duties have been removed
from the controllers so as to reduce their volume of work and
it has been agreed that their workload will be kept under
review. In 1982, the number of leading ambulancemen (control
duties) was increased by five in anticipation of the ambulance
service for the Dublin area being provided exclusively by the
Board. As this change did not occur at the time, the manpower
has been underutilised. In these circumstances, there are no
grounds for a job evaluation exercise.
2. The claim for an evaluation exercise originated as a pay
claim which was made when the Board outlined the plan for the
transfer of the '999' control. The Board is still prepared to
deal with the pay claim through the normal industrial
relations machinery. It is management's view that a job
evaluation exercise is unnecessary and that such an exercise
would only fuel expectations of a pay increase. In any event
it is possible that the Board may not have control of '999'
calls after March, 1990 as the transfer of control took place
on a trial basis and after that date the Review Committee will
make a recommendation to the Minister for Health on the future
of the service. The rates of pay for ambulance personnel in
the Dublin area of the Board apply to ambulance personnel
countrywide. In fact, the claimants received a special
increase on 1st July, 1989 and are due to receive a further
one from 1st July, 1990. Concession of this claim would have
serious repercussive effects in relation to ambulance
personnel in other areas.