FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : EASTERN HEALTH BOARD HEALTH SERVICES EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Rehearing arising from LCR 16072.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed as porters by the Eastern Health Board at its Homeless Persons Unit, located in the Charles Street Health Centre, Dublin 1. The dispute concerns the Union's claim on behalf of three porters for regrading. It claims that the porter's role is more akin to the duties carried out by general assistants employed in Health Centres throughout the Eastern Health Board. The Board rejects the claim. It argues that general assistants have a different role and level of responsibility and the claim should be dealt with in the context of nationally agreed procedures provided for under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
On the 29th of January, 1999 the Labour Court issued LCR 16072 in which it recommended that this claim be dealt with within the Partnership Committees as a matter of urgency when they are agreed. The issue was referred to the Partnership Committees but was not heard during the lifespan of the Committees and the matter was referred back to the Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th of September, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The porters carry out a difficult and dangerous job in an essential service. Their dedication and ability is not recognised in a meaningful way by the Eastern Health Board.
2. Stress levels in the job are high and the workload is steadily increasing. Numbers attending the Centre have significantly increased over the past year without any increase in staff numbers. The problems of homelessness and drug abuse are worsening due to the lack of affordable accommodation in Dublin.
3. Significant training is required for this group of staff and this is confirmed in the risk assessment report. However, the Union has reservations about the ability of the Board to provide relevant training. Management has acknowledged its inability to source a relevant training programme.
4. The premises are dilapidated and unsuitable. Numerous promises of relocation have not been fulfilled.
5. The Union is seeking that the workers be regraded to general assistants. If this is not possible, the Court is requested to recommend a significant increase in remuneration. This increase to take effect immediately as this group has been pursuing this issue for a number of years.
HEALTH BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness provides for the establishment of a Public Service Benchmarking Body to undertake a fundamental examination of the pay of public service employees vis-a-vis the private sector and make recommendations. Clause 6 of Annex 11 of Framework 1 provides:-
"that any outstanding claims or commitments in relation to pay, analogue or other reviews, in whatever form by or in respect of any grade, group or category will be subsumed within the benchmarking exercise and will be dealt with solely in that context".
A separate agreement provides that certain exceptional arrangements will apply in relation to the pay of public service craftworkers and general operatives/non-nursing grades. As a result, the porters referred to in this claim stand to receive whatever increases may emerge under paragraph 3 of that agreement. However, paragraph 5 again makes it clear that:-
"any other claims by these groups will be governed strictly by the provisions of
the Pay Agreement. In particular, neither the joint partnership initiative provided
for in the 1998 agreement (to examine general operatives, non-nursing
structures) nor any claim in relation to the extension of travel time will be
processed during the period of the Agreement".
2. Delivery of services to homeless persons has been the subject of national reviews
(Homeless Initiative) and local review. Fundamental changes are currently being
planned with a view to enhancing the quality of services provided to homeless
persons. These developments include an outreach service delivery model
which will deliver the service to the client directly, drop in centre for initial
assessment of homeless persons and a comprehensive multi-disciplinery
response to specific needs i.e. medical response, therapeutic response etc.
3. Discussions are currently taking place with the Community Welfare staff in
Charles Street in relation to service provision which will change radically from
early October, 2000. Initial discussions have also taken place with
management and the portering staff and with their representative Trade
Union. In the circumstances the Court is asked to uphold its recommendation
that the regrading claim be dealt with in the context of nationally agreed
procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court in LCR16072 recommended that this claim be dealt with as a matter of urgency by the proposed Partnership Committees. Although referred to the Committees, the claim was not dealt with within the lifespan of the Committees.
While accepting that the claim has been outstanding since 1998, the Court is constrained by the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness Clause:
"that any outstanding claims or commitments in relation to pay, analogue or other reviews, in whatever form by or in respect of any grade, group or category will be subsumed within the benchmarking exercises and will be dealt with solely in that context."
The Court, therefore, cannot consider this claim but would strongly recommend that it be given priority in the proposed profiling Exercise outlined to the Court by Management.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
12 September, 2000______________________
FB/SHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.