FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST. FRANCIS PRIVATE HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. IR8378/02/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimant is a biochemist and commenced employment with the hospital in 1985. The Union claims that the worker is being unfairly treated by management as a consequence of proposed changes to the reporting structure for laboratory staff. It states that management want to implement these changes without agreement with the Union.
Management rejected the Union's claim. It states that management has to have the right to manage the Hospital as it sees fit.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioners hearing which took place on the 20th June, 2002. The following is the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation:-
"I do not find that the staff concerned are being treated unfairly by the proposed change in the reporting structure. I have been unable to identify any valid professional reason why the staff are refusing to accept the proposed structures.
Similarly, I have been unable to identify how the proposed change can be described as worsening the conditions of the staff concerned or diminishing their status within the Hospital.
On balance, therefore, I recommend that the staff accept the proposal outlined by the Hospital letter of May 10th, 2002."
The worker appealed the Recommendation on the 16th August, 2002 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute in Athlone on the 21st November, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The current reporting structures for laboratory staff has served our members, the hospital and its clients for over twenty-five years. There is no need to change them now.
2. Change for change sake is not always a good policy. No logical explanation has been given as to why this change should take place and of the benefits which would accrue from same.
3. The claimant's conditions of employment and the spirit and meaning of her contract are being forcibly changedwithout agreement. This is in breach of existing agreements and commitments.
4. The Medical Laboratory Scientist Association (M.L.S.A.) claims that such a reporting structure, as that presented by management, is in contradiction of best practice and is not in compliance or comparable with reporting structures within the Public Health Service.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management has to have the right to manage the Hospital as they see fit. The Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.) does not wish to be involved in the day to day running of the laboratories or other departments due to his other duties.
2. Other grades such as radiography, physiotherapy, pharmacy and locums have all accepted the new reporting structures. They have not claimed that they are being treated unfairly nor have they complained to their professional bodies regarding same.
3. In 1999, the Hospital was in severe financial difficulties. A number of redundancies were instituted, other cost-saving measures were introduced and a number of structural changes brought about, to improve efficiency.
4. The C.E.O. made it clear to the laboratory staff and other departments that they should report to the Director of Nursing as per their contract of employment.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the submissions made by the parties, finds no grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court, therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
6th December, 2002______________________
LW/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.