FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Relocation disturbance claim
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue involves a claim by the Union, representing 18 Ambulance Personnel, for disturbance money arising from the relocation of staff and operations from Naas Hospital to a new base at Monread, Naas, a distance of 2-3 miles. The move took place in November 1998.
In October, 1998, the Union met with the Chief Ambulance Officer (CAO), and requested a number of items for the new base. These included a television and video, a snooker table, a treadmill and an exercise bike. The Union claims that it also raised the issue of disturbance money, and that management advised that there was no mechanism in the Board to pay staff as a result of the move to the new base. The Union also claims that a commitment had been given in 1993 by the CAO at that time that if there was a change in the Board's policy in relation to disturbance money, then staff could re-enter a claim for such compensation. The Union cited payments made to St. Loman's psychiatric nurses for moving to Tallaght Hospital as an example of the Board paying 'disturbance' money.
The Union has listed a number of items which it believes have impacted on the workers, due to the move to the new site, including the following - the loss of subsidised canteen, additional work duties and responsibilities, greater distances to travel to work, hygiene and safety concerns (a full list of the items was supplied to the Court). The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and 2 conciliation conferences took place on the 17th of September and the 28th of October, 1999. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th of January, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th of June, 2000, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have co-operated fully in the move to the new site. They did so in the belief that the Board would stand by its commitment entered into in 1993 (and again in 1998) regarding a change in policy in relation to paying disturbance money. This commitment was not disputed by the CAO in meetings held in 1998.
2. The disturbances, cost and changes to work practices as a result of the relocation are numerous, although none were envisaged. The workers should be compensated as other groups within the Board who relocated have been, e.g. from St. Loman's to Tallaght hospital.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The new base at Monread is state-of-the-art and is superior to the Naas Hospital Base. Most of the items listed by the Union are quite trivial and do not mean any great disturbance for the workers. There are no changes in reporting relationships or staff rosters, and no loss of earnings.
2. The case cited by the Union (the psychiatric nurses in St. Loman's Hospital) is totally different. This involved major changes for staff, including a re-organisation of services with the amalgamation of 3 hospitals into one facility. As a result of on-going service development, staff are constantly being re-deployed. Payment of disturbance money in this case would set a precedent in the Board.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties, the Court does not consider that the extent of any changes affecting the claimants is such as to warrant a compensatory payment. In particular, the Court does not regard the range of issues highlighted in the particular case as being in any sense comparable with what was involved in the extensive re-organisation associated with the centralisation of Health Services at Tallaght Hospital.
The Court notes the range of issues raised by the Union which, it is claimed, have given rise to some inconvenience to the staff concerned. While there are clearly benefits to the staff from the move, the Court believes that some of these complaints are not entirely without foundation.
The Court recommends that management should meet again with the Union with a view to agreeing ways of alleviating, as far as practicable, the inconvenience identified.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st June, 2000______________________
CON/CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.