FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CENTRAL MENTAL HOSPITAL, DUNDRUM (REPRESENTED BY THE HEALTH SERVICES EMPLOYERS AGENCY) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Programme for Competitiveness and Work - Proposals on flexibility/productivity measures.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed by the Eastern Health Board as care officers at the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum.
In June, 1997, the Department of Justice and the Prison Officers' Association reached agreement under the terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) on flexibility/productivity measures in return for enhanced rates of pay.
In August, 1997, the Union sought the application of the agreement to the care officers employed in the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum on the basis of an established pay relationship with prison officers.
Local level discussions took place following which management put forward proposals on flexibility/productivity measures in return for concession of the Union's claim. Management's proposals were unacceptable to the Union.
The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission following which the Industrial Relations Officer put forward proposals on the 12th of May, 1998 and amended proposals (details supplied to the Court) on the 14th of July, 1998. The proposals were rejected by the Union. One area of difficulty is item 8 of the proposals (replacement of gate staff). Management is seeking the replacement of care officers with more appropriate staff with regard to gate duties.
As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th of September, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of October, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Central Mental Hospital is the country's only maximum security hospital, catering for patients sentenced under the judicial process. The care officers are concerned with security considerations under Clause 8 of the Industrial Relations Officer's proposals which are causing major concern in relation to personal security.
2. The manning of the gate duties is vital to the security of the patients and the general public. The knowledge and experience of the care officers is paramount in the provision of an efficient and safe working environment at the Hospital.
3. Prior to the intake of Registered Psychiatric Nurses in October, 1992 the front line staffing grade at the Hospital was care officers. All of the patients needs were catered for in a safe environment provided by care officers. Despite the difficult nature of providing care and security, the job was carried out in a professional manner, seldom did one area of the role impinge on the other.
4. The Union considers it inappropriate for management to seek the proposed change which was responsible for the workers' decision to reject the proposals, and particularly in view of the long established practice of rotating the responsibilities of the gate duties between care officers.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management has made every effort to agree a flexibility/productivity package, both through direct discussions and through the offices of the Labour Relations Commission. The proposals which were to be recommended by both parties were developed to take cognisance of the views of both parties, as presented throughout the process.
2. Management has consistently indicated that it is the totality of the flexibility/productivity measures which are required in order to accrue the necessary savings. Dilution of individual terms is not feasible or acceptable.
3. The financing of this claim has become increasingly difficult as a consequence of the rejection of two sets of proposals. The measures sought are required in order to provide the optimum services to the patients in the Hospital.
4. The care staff wish to attain the restoration of their pay relationship with the prison officers, but are unwilling to deliver the necessary productivity measures which the prison officers delivered, in order to accrue the required savings applicable to their claim.
5. Management is requesting the Court to endorse the proposals put forward by the Industrial Relations Officer in July, 1998. Anything less than the total implementation of its content will not enable the claim on behalf of the care officers to be conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all the information supplied recommends that the employees accept the proposals dated the 14th of July, 1998.
The Court would also recommend that a review take place 12 months after the implementation of the Gate Staff proposal, to ascertain the actual overtime loss of the individuals affected.
This loss to be compensated at 1.5 times the annual loss.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
10th November, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.