FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - AND - LOUGHLINSTOWN AMBULANCE STAFF DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim for pay relativity with ambulance controllers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a pay claim by 16 Emergency Medical Technicians (E.M.T.s), who are employed by the Eastern Health Board (the Board). The claim is for a 7.5% pay increase which was paid to the Leading Ambulance Person Control Duties grade (L.A.P.s) in February, 1998, with whom the E.M.T.s have a pay relationship. The pay relationship was established in 1993 following a Labour Court hearing. The E.M.T.s are located at Loughlinstown Ambulance Station.
They claim that the following is the situation:-
In February, 1998, the L.A.P.s transferred from James's Street to Townsend Street (Central Control) and received a pay increase of 7.5% without any productivity/flexibility measures being conceded. As compensation for the move, they received the following:
- (i) Two weeks' extra holiday leave or cash equivalent (once off).
(ii) Free car parking in the centre of Dublin.
(iii) Structured overtime at the rate of time plus one half for half an hour, and double time for half an hour for each shift worked.
SIPTU lodged a claim on behalf of the E.M.T.s for pay parity with the L.A.P.s. The E.M.T.s concerned were members of the SIPTU at the time but have since resigned. A meeting took place in April, 1998 between SIPTU and the Health Services Employers' Agency (H.S.E.A.), which involved the claim on a national level. At the meeting, the Union again sought the 7.5% pay increase and stated that if productivity/flexibility was sought, strike notice would issue. In response, the H.S.E.A., while confirming the pay relationship between the E.M.T.s and the L.A.P.s, requested that the overall group of ambulance personnel be split into 2 groups, Dublin and provincial.
On the 6th of July, 1998, a list of 12 productivity/flexibility items was sent to the Union from the H.S.E.A. A number of meetings followed. The E.M.T.s view was that retrospective productivity had already been conceded since 1993. Following a meeting in September, 1998, SIPTU arranged separate meetings for the ambulance staff at Loughlinstown and James's Street bases to conduct separate ballots on the productivity/flexibility proposals. The E.M.T.s felt this was breaking with past procedures and were unhappy with SIPTU's handling of the situation. Following a further meeting at Loughlinstown on the 8th of October, all SIPTU members located there submitted their resignations. Subsequently, a ballot in James's Street resulted in acceptance of the productivity/flexibility proposals.
The group of E.M.T.s referred their case to the Labour Court on the 23rd of April, 1999, in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd of July, 1999. The Board did not attend the hearing, but it did submit a written statement.
The following is a summary of the Board's statement:-
In early 1998, the L.A.P.s transferred from James's Street to Townsend Street in an agreement concluded under the Program for Competitiveness and Work (P.C.W.) Part of this agreement involved a list of flexibility/productivity measures. Discussions took place with the unions involving Dublin Ambulance Personnel, including the E.M.T.s involved in the claim who were represented by SIPTU. In October, 1998, a pay increase was approved for the Dublin Ambulance Personnel. Special reference was made to the L.A.P. group and the fact that they had been part of a pay and productivity agreement. This agreement is effectively a restructuring of that grade. The E.M.T.s cannot expect to maintain a pay relationship with the L.A.P. group without conceding a flexibility/productivity agreement. It is not appropriate for the Board to enter into discussions with a group of workers not represented by a union.
E.M.T.'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The group has acted in a professional and consistent manner from the beginning. It has been available to talk to the Board at all times but to no avail.
2. The Board does not dispute the fact that there is a pay relationship between the E.M.T.s and the L.A.P.s.
3. Following the move to Townsend Street, the L.A.P.s received a pay increase of 7.5% without any productivity/flexibility being conceded. A letter from the H.S.E.A. on the 22nd of May, 1998, re-affirms this. The E.M.T.s, who have an acknowledged pay relationship with the L.A.P.s, should receive a similar pay increase.
4. SIPTU had negotiated a separate productivity/flexibility package for the provincial area workers. These workers have an established relativity with the Dublin area/L.A.P. grade. The measures conceded by the provincial area workers had a minimal impact on their pay and working conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court was hampered in its decison-making by the fact that one party (the employer side) was not present at the hearing, although they did submit a written statement to the Court for consideration at the hearing.
Matters were raised concerning Union representation, which can be more effectively resolved in a different forum. In this context, the Court understands from the claimants that this issue has been referred to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. In the Court's view, this is the appropriate forum for resolution of internal union problems regarding representation.
With regard to the central issue in dispute, the pay relatively claim, the Court takes the view that the increase in pay as claimed should involve negotiation on productivity/flexibility measure, appropriate to the Loughlinstown base.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th August, 1999.______________________
CON/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.