Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93436 Case Number: LCR14201 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUBLIN VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS - and - MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGISTS ASSOCIATION |
Claim by the Association for the removal of the quota system from the operation of the laboratory emergency services.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the claim is cost-increasing and, therefore,
under the terms of the P.E.S.P. cannot be conceded.
The Court considers, however, that steps should be taken to
introduce a monitoring system as recommended in paragraph 1 C of
the 1981 Agreement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93436 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14201
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DUBLIN VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGISTS ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Association for the removal of the quota system
from the operation of the laboratory emergency services.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns medical laboratory
technicians/technologists. Prior to 1981 all laboratory emergency
on-call work in major hospitals was paid for on a 'fee-per-item
basis.' In 1981, the parties concluded an agreement for the
introduction of an alternative method of payment known as the
sessional system which is an inclusive fee for all emergency work
carried out between 5-12 p.m. All calls post-midnight continue to
be paid for on a fee-per-item basis. In medium-sized hospitals a
fee-per-item system continues to apply but the 1981 Agreement
introduced a quota of 60 calls per week. At that time the number
of calls was less than 60 p.w. but the demand for out-of-hours
testing has increased substantially. The Association claims that
the quota should now be abolished because under the present system
workers are suffering a substantial loss of earnings. Management
rejects the claim. The Union sought to refer the issue to the
Labour Relations Commission but Management was unwilling to attend
a conciliation conference. On the 20th July the Association
referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 13th September, 1993 (the earliest date suitable to
the parties).
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Within the present system post-midnight calls occurring in
major hospital "sessional" laboratories are not subject to
quota. The rate of payment is the same for all calls.
Workers in medium-sized hospitals where the quota is applied
are at a considerable disadvantage compared to colleagues
employed in 'sessional' laboratories where no quota applies.
2. In the case of radiographers the Court has already
recommended that emergency work performed by them is not
subject to any quota. The workers concerned are now being
treated less favourably than radiographers. It is unfair that
two professional groups employed in the same health service
should be paid differently for work of equal value.
3. Concession of the claim may result in a small cost
increase which would be negated if employers in medium-sized
hospitals, where the quota is currently exceeded, introduce
the alternative 'sessional' system. Clause 1(c) of the
Agreement states that "during the periods of emergency
'on-call' sessions requests for laboratory tests should be
confined to non-deferrable work". A sizeable proportion of
work being carried out by the workers concerned outside normal
working hours is not strictly emergency non-deferrable work.
The cost of this work is considerable. The Association is
strongly in favour of monitoring in accordance with Clause 1
of the 1981 Agreement.
HOSPITALS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1981 Agreement provided for substantial pay increases
for the workers concerned. The quota system was an integral
part of the Agreement and was specifically introduced for
hospitals which would not be in a position to benefit from the
introduction of sessions. If this system were now abolished,
those hospitals would incur considerable extra cost and would
be denied the only concession secured under the Agreement.
2. The removal of the quota system will have the effect of
increasing the earnings in various hospitals. The claim is
cost-increasing and precluded under the terms of P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the claim is cost-increasing and, therefore,
under the terms of the P.E.S.P. cannot be conceded.
The Court considers, however, that steps should be taken to
introduce a monitoring system as recommended in paragraph 1 C of
the 1981 Agreement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
24th September, 1993. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.