FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : EAST COAST AREA HEALTH BOARD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Implementation date for the pay and productivity agreement under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 12 Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT's) based at Loughlinstown Ambulance Base. In 1998, the Union, on behalf of EMT's in the Dublin area, concluded an agreement on pay and productivity, under the PCW, with the Board. The agreement provided for an implementation date of June, 1997. Some of the EMT's in the Loughlinstown Base rejected the productivity element of the agreement and refused to implement it. As a result of the agreement some EMT's left the Union and attempted to negotiate directly with the Board. However, the Board refused to negotiate with the group. The EMT's rejoined the Union in March, 2000, and all elements of the deal are now agreed apart from the implementation date. The Union claims the agreement applies from the June, 1997 date. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 23rd of April, 2001. No agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 27 of July, 2001. The dispute was received in the Court on the 27th of July, 2001. A Court hearing was held on the 10th of October, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Of the 25 EMT's objecting to the PCW package in October,1998, approximately 7 of this group signed off on the package and received full retrospection. Some of these workers accepted the package, post the closing date of April, 1999, and
as late as mid-2000. EMT's who are members of another union signed up the PCW agreement in January, 2000 and received full retrospection.
2. Members who objected to the total PCW agreement performed the exact same duties as those who received full retrospection and in some cases to a higher level than specified in the PCW agreement.
3. The agreement could have been reached on full implementation of the PCW in Loughlinstown in both January, 2000, and May, 2000. Members signing off on
the PCW in January, and May, 2000, did receive full retrospection to June, 1997. The delays in concluding agreement were not fully the responsibility of the claimants.
4. Management has acted in an inconsistent and selective manner in how they have chosen to deal with the issue of retrospection.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimants chose to remain outside the PCW agreement on flexibility and productivity until March 2001. They forfeited entitlement to retrospective payment to June, 1997, because of their noncompliance with the agreement
as per the PCW.
2. The offer of retrospection made, through various correspondence, had set a closing date for those remaining outside the terms agreed. In an effort to resolve the issue the Board,at conciliation, made an offer to pay the increase retrospective
to the 1st of January, 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to the arguments put forward by both sides. The Court was informed at the hearing, that management had made an offer at conciliation to pay the increase retrospective for a period of sixteen months, i,e. back to January, 2000. The Court is of the view that this element of retrospection is consistent with the original 1998 agreement and recommends that this offer should be accepted in full and final settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd October,2001______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.