FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : EASTERN REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Regrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by the Unions for the regrading of eight ambulance controllers to clerical/administrative Grade IV. The controllers are employed in the regional control centre in Townsend Street. The emergency ambulance service is provided by Dublin Corporation Fire Brigade on behalf of the Eastern Regional Health Authority (E.R.H.A.) in the Dublin area excluding Dublin South-East. The latter's own ambulance service provide the emergency service in this region and in counties Kildare and Wicklow.
The Unions state that they have been in negotiation with management over this claim since the ambulance controllers re-located to Townsend Street in February, 1998. Following the intervention of a Rights Commissioner and several meetings at local level, the Unions claim that agreement was reached in relation to the regrading issue.
As a result SIPTU lodged a claim on behalf of all ambulance controllers nationally claiming Grade IV status for its 600 members on the basis of the agreement concluded on behalf of ambulance controllers in Townsend Street.
Management denies that there was any final agreement with the Unions concerning the regrading of the posts. It claims that there was a commitment in the Board's service plan for some regrading which had the approval of the Department of Health. Concession of the Unions' claim would have national pay implications in relation to the current national agreement.
The Unions' claim that there was an agreement and state that they want this agreement implemented in full.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 20th of April, 2000 and the 5th of May, 2000, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th of May, 2000 under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 2nd of June, 2000.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions want the agreement reached in December, 1999 and January, 2000 implemented in full and with immediate effect.
2. Management included costings for the new positions in its Service Plan which was approved by the Department of Health.
3. The Unions do not accept that there would be knock-on effects if the claim was conceded.
4. There has been difficulty over the past two years in recruiting staff to the control room. This is mainly due to the existing structures and unacceptable working conditions.
5. Failure to implement the agreement will have implications for health and safety and industrial relations matters for both unions and management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Unions' claim for eight senior posts is not justified or sustainable. There is no need for such a number of supervisory posts.
2. The workers concerned have benefited significantly following the re-location to Townsend Street. They received the following:
(a) 7% pay increase under the P.C.W.;
(b) co-operation payment of £2,950 in June, 1999;
(c) significant overtime earnings arising from the non-filling of posts and;
(d) the opportunity to compete for some promotional posts with the possibility of further posts in the future.
3. Management are prepared to engage in a review of the supervisory structure when the integration of the call taking/call activation for Wicklow and Kildare is moved to Townsend Street.
4. The Dublin ambulance controllers is a key marker grade. Any concessions of this claim would have serious ramifications, not just for pay among ambulance personnel but also for the recently concluded Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
RECOMMENDATION:
From the submissions made by the parties and the information made available by them the Court has reached the following conclusions:
1. In the course of direct discussions between the parties and in the facilitation process agreement in principle was reached on the creation of new senior posts, at Clerical/Administrative Grade IV, within the Townsend Street Control Centre while retaining the marker LAP grade.
2. While tangible agreement as to the number of senior posts to be created was not reached the thrust of the discussions in the facilitation process suggested that eight such posts would be created.
3. In consequence of these developments the staff concerned had a legitimate expectation that eight senior posts would be created within the new single command and control centre in Dublin. On foot of this legitimate expectation the staff cooperated with the restructuring of the command and control function.
4. At all material times, up to February 2000, the discussions between the parties proceeded on the joint understanding that the proposed up-grading of posts was justified on factors relating to the operational requirements of the new control centre in Dublin and would have no broader implications.
5. When the ERHA became aware that any up-grading in Dublin would result in consequential claims for all other Leading Ambulance Persons throughout the country, the context in which the earlier discussions and negotiations were conducted changed significantly.
The Court is satisfied that had the situation not changed from that originally envisaged it is probable that final agreement would have been reached between the parties on the introduction of up-graded senior posts in the Townsend St Control Centre. It is noted that the ERHA has offered to create a lesser number of posts than that envisaged by the unions. However, the Court believes that the national implications highlighted by one of the unions would arise regardless of the number of up-dated posts actually created.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the parties resume discussions with a view to identifying how their original intention of addressing the unions' claim on the basis of factors peculiar to the restructured Dublin Control Centre can be restored.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th July, 2000.______________________
LW/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.