FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYERS AGENCY - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. 1; Increase in acting-up allowance 2; Reduction in qualifying period for acting-up allowance 3; Incremental progression for those on acting-up allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Union's claim in relation to officers employed in the health boards carrying out duties of a higher grade. There are three elements to the Union's claim i.e. the qualifying period for payment of the acting-up allowance, an increase in the acting-up allowance and incremental credit for officers acting in a higher capacity. Management rejects the claim. It argues that the claim is cost increasing and, therefore, in breach of the stabilisation clause of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and that any departure from the existing acting-up arrangement would have serious knock-on effects within the Public Service generally.
The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd of January, 2001. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd of January, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Expert Group on Various Health Professions, which was recommended by the Labour Court, proposed that individuals on promotion be guaranteed a minimum of £4,431 from October, 2000. By extension individuals acting in a higher capacity must be paid an allowance of £4,431. It is unacceptable that such an approach applies to one set of workers in the Health Service and not to another. The Union is seeking that the allowance of £4,431 be extended to the claimants when undertaking higher duties.
2. Payment of the acting-up allowance after seven days is reasonable and equitable and in line with other groups of workers in the Health Service.
3. It is illogical and inconsistent that individuals acting-up for more than one year do not receive increments as is the case of temporary employees. Concession of the Union's claim might help to ensure that such positions are filled on a permanent basis.
HSEA'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The acting-up arrangements that pertain in the Health Service and indeed in the wider Public Service are established practices, which have been in existence for a number of years and have stood the test of time.
2. The Union's claim is cost increasing and, therefore, in breach of the stabilisation clause of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
3. The value of the acting-up allowance is increased in accordance with national wage increases and any departure from the existing acting-up arrangement both in terms of the quantum of the allowance and the qualifying period would have serious knock-on effects within the Public Service generally.
4. Incremental progression is not feasible for two primary reasons:-
- The staff member remains in his/her substantive post during the period of acting up.
- It would also have a negative impact on those permanent staff members who would have gone through an objective and transparent selection process in order to achieve promotion.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that there are clearly anomalies in the system that cause frustration to the individuals concerned and create a feeling of inequity.
However, the Court is constrained by the provisions set out in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, agreed by the Social Partners, which clearly in Clause II prohibits any cost increasing claims.
The Court, on that basis rejects the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
29th January, 2001______________________
FB/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.