FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Application of Officer Grade status to Employees working in the Clinical Sterile Services Department in Hospitals in the Western Health Board.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a grade claim in respect of staff in the Clinical Sterile Services Department of the Western Health Board. The Union is seeking a similar arrangement to that applied to similar staff in the Eastern Regional Authority. There are approximately 100 staff represented by the claim, 60 operatives and 40 attendants, working predominately in the C.S.S.D. area and are employed by the Health Boards outside Dublin. 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 6th of October, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th January 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Up to December 2000 all C.S.S.D. workers were on the Group 1 of the non-nursing grade. Since then workers employed in Dublin have broken away and have secured a higher rate of pay for carrying out the same duties and responsibilities as their colleagues across the Country.
2. The union is not prepared to accept a situation whereby different rates of pay are paid to workers in similar employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1998 agreement including the list of outstanding claims was entered into by the employers and the unions with a clear understanding that no additional claims would be forthcoming.
2. The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness provides that "it is accepted in the context of the agreement between the parties on the establishment of the Public Benchmarking Body, 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".
3. A further associated agreement between the employers and the unions was finalised in November 2000 and states :-
"In accordance with the public pay agreement which forms part of the PPF, it is accepted that in the case of any grade, group or category covered by this process:
(a) no cost increasing claims by trade unions or employees for improvement in pay or conditions of employment, other than those provided for in clause 4 of Annex 11 of the PPF, will be made during the currency of the agreement and
(b) in the context of the agreement between the parties on the establishment of this process, any outstanding claims or commitments in relation to pay, analogue or other reviews, in whatever form, will be subsumed within this process and will be dealt with solely in that context.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made by the parties to this dispute.
The Court notes that the Union and the HSEA are party to the 1998 Analogue Agreement and to the subsequent associated agreement concluded in November 2000.
The Court concurs with the stance adopted by the HSEA in relation to November Agreement, which in relevant part provides as follows:
(a) no cost increasing claims by Trade Unions or employees for improvements in pay or conditions of employment, other that those provided for in Clause 4 of Annex II of the PPF, will be made or processed during the currency of the Agreement and
(b) in the context of the Agreement between the parties on the establishment of the process, any outstanding claims or commitments in relation to pay, analogue or other review, in whatever form, will be subsumed within this process and will be dealt with solely in that context.
The Court further notes that in the context of that agreement, a detailed profiling exercise,
including access to an independent expert, is being undertaken in relation to all
non-nursing grades in the Health Service. The Court recommends that the parties agree to
include all CSSD operatives (including those in Dublin) in this process so as to ensure that
their role and responsibilities are clearly defined and that the outcome of this process
applies equally to all staff within the grade.
Taking account to the arguments advanced in support of the present claim, its history and
merits, the Court further recommends that the terms of the Dublin Agreement be
extended to those associated with the claim with effect from 1st October 2000.
The Court makes this recommendation on the understanding that the parties undertake that all outstanding claims and reviews for non-nursing grades be processed in the context of the November 2000 agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th March , 2001______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.