Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94728 Case Number: LCR14662 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: STEWART'S HOSPITAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning flexibility in the pre-school facility.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both
parties. It is clear that while a wide area of agreement has
already been achieved by the parties, a problem exists in relation
to the interpretation of the Flexibility Agreement. Both sides
accept that there is and has been acceptance and implementation of
flexibility in the hospital. However, the Union does not accept
that the flexibility agreement should be used to effect job
reductions or major work reorganisation.
The Court believes the Employer should be sensitive to the
concerns of individuals in applying the flexibility Agreement in
cases of major reorganisation.
In the context of the above and having regard to the fact that
there will be no redundancies or loss of earnings as a result of
the proposed changes the Court recommends that they be accepted by
the workers involved.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94728 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14662
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
STEWART'S HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning flexibility in the pre-school facility.
BACKGROUND:
2. The hospital provides pre-school and day care facilities
(both residential and non-residential) for people with mental
handicap. The dispute concerns the flexibility of 'Team
members' presently assigned to the pre-school, a facility
within the day-service programme of the hospital. There are
43.5 Team members employed in the day-service programme which
encompasses a range of activities in various locations.
With a view to integrating the children attending the
hospital more into society, the hospital is seeking to switch
the emphasis of some of its activities, under the heading
"Interlinking of Day Activity Programmes with home based
Residential Programmes". Arising from this, there will be a
requirement for more staff in the day-service facilities than
in the pre-school. Additionally, as delivery and collection
of non-residential school children to and from the hospital
would become a parental responsibility, less pre-school staff
would be required in the pre-school. It is proposed to
transfer staff from the pre-school to the day- service. The
hospital claims that it has this option on the basis of the
1993 agreement with the Union, whereby Team members have to
be flexible between facilities/locations. The Union's
position is that the flexibility proposed was not that
envisaged in the 1993 agreement.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and was the subject of three conciliation conferences at
which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court, on the 22nd of December, 1994, in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 10th of
January, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Hospital is seeking to present this dispute as
concerning flexibility and management's right to
re-assign staff, in a normal operational situation.
This is not the case. What is involved is a radical
rationalisation of the pre-school service, within the
context of an overall plan for change within the
organisation.
2. "Flexibility" such as it is understood in the Hospital
has never been used as a vehicle to force major change
upon a whole department such as pre-school and certainly
not as a means of job reduction, deskilling, or for the
replacement of qualified staff by non-qualified
non-staff for escort-duties or after care.
Invariably, where flexibility is invoked by Management
it is solely to deal with individuals in a "normal"
operational situation. Therefore, this use of
flexibility by Management is totally unprecedented and
beyond the parameters of any reasonable or actual
interpretation of the terms as applied by custom and
practice.
3. The Union has offered, at conciliation and subsequently,
to negotiate change in the pre-school within the context
of the current staffing complement. This is a fair and
reasonable position, especially since the nett benefit
of increased efficiency accruing from the hospital's
proposal, amounts to only a few hours per week.
The impact of the loss of one and a half jobs in this
particular area is out of all proportion to the
increased efficiency.
4. It is intolerable that the hospital should seek to
"waste" full-time qualified nursing or teaching posts
and replace them, without good reason, with part-time
staff or unqualified non-employees - be they parents or
Home Escort personnel.
5. Escort duties, etc., have always been required as a
professional obligation in the hospital, not only for
the actual escort function, but also as a method for
primary contact with the family of the child, and
consistent with the professional practice in comparable
institutions.
6. When the hospital originally proposed the changes in the
pre-school it was in order to release staffing resources
to contribute to an improved day care service for older
clients. This was at a time when only an extra 10 care
staff were available to implement the new Day Service
Programme. However, since then, by negotiation, that
figure has been increased to 17. Accordingly, there
should be less need for the changes sought by the
hospital in the pre-school.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Transfer/interchangeability has been an integral part of
the management of services over the years.
2. In 1990, as part of the procedural agreement, the issue
of transfer/interchangeability was incorporated and
accepted as essential for the efficient management of
the hospital.
3. An agreement was reached with Day-Service staff in 1993,
which incorporated and reiterated the interchangeability
/flexibility requirement for all Team members/Senior
Team members. The hospital has delivered on all aspects
of the 1993 agreement in terms of additional promotional
outlets and a unitary grade, with pay increases for a
number of personnel within the Day Service.
4. Existing staff within the pre-school have previously
transferred and were re-assigned within the Day Service.
5. The transferring, on a phased basis, of existing Team
members to other Day Activity Facilities is fundamental
to the implementation of the interlinked service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both
parties. It is clear that while a wide area of agreement has
already been achieved by the parties, a problem exists in relation
to the interpretation of the Flexibility Agreement. Both sides
accept that there is and has been acceptance and implementation of
flexibility in the hospital. However, the Union does not accept
that the flexibility agreement should be used to effect job
reductions or major work reorganisation.
The Court believes the Employer should be sensitive to the
concerns of individuals in applying the flexibility Agreement in
cases of major reorganisation.
In the context of the above and having regard to the fact that
there will be no redundancies or loss of earnings as a result of
the proposed changes the Court recommends that they be accepted by
the workers involved.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th January, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.