FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND CHILDREN (REPRESENTED BY HSEA) - AND - MEDICAL, DENTAL AND ACADEMIC MEDICAL/DENTAL CONSULTANTS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MEDICAL ORGANISATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Pay award to be agreed and implemented.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are 1,650 Hospital consultant posts approved by Comhairle na nOispideal. The remuneration of this group traditionally has been set by the government taking account of the recommendations of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector. This group are in a similar position to other groups that come within the remit of the Review Body in that their remuneration is reviewed periodically by the Body and recommendations are submitted to Government for decision.The last general review, which included the hospital consultants took place in 2000.
The report states that the Body did "not recommend any changes in the present structures that might prejudice the deliberations of the Forum" (on Medical Manpower) and that it's "recommendations are basedon the job roles as they exist today".
Report no. 38 of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector was published in September 2000. The report recommended an increase in salary of 10% for the present claimants-holders of the common contract employed as consultants in medicine and dentistry, including holders of academic contracts, plus regional orthodontic consultants.
The Irish Medical Organisation referred the case to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10th of January , 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants were the only category to be awarded an interim increase of 10%. The Review Body stated, "we have taken the view that we should not recommend any changes in the present structure which might prejudice the deliberations of the (Medical Manpower) Forum and our recommendations are based on job roles as they exist today"
2. The unprecedented level of change, highlighted in the Organisation's submission to the Review Body, has continued unabated and far in excess of the increase in medical staffing which has occurred and in spite of the fact that recent increases in investment have still left levels of funding well below the EU and OECD averages.
3. Report no. 38 did suggestthat some issues were worthy of immediate discussion and did not link such discussions to those which had been anticipated at the time would immediately follow publication of the Forum on Medical Manpower.
4. Factors specific to consultants- such as rising house prices- which are particularly relevant to consultants in view of the truly international nature of their labour market and the fact that most consultants are appointed having worked abroad immediately previously.
5. Outstanding levels of service, as outlined, at a time when resource levels have been declining in relative terms but with activity levels increasing exponentially.
6. The improved state of the public finances and the fact that remuneration levels in the past had been suppressed because of the then unhealthy state of the public finances.
7. The insufficient level of increase awarded in the last Review, and bearing in mind the fact that the Organisation was deprived of its entitlement to make representation on behalf of consultants at the Review.
8. In anticipation of the need to ensure that remuneration levels had sufficient leeway to cope with rising inflation and the possibility of further economic difficulties.
9. Report no. 38 found that "increase in salary for consultants should be based generally on the average level of increase for other health sector posts covered by our examination". Previously, the Review Body had surveyed peers beyond such confines and sought to ensure that the claimants' remuneration should be equivalent to peers with similar levels of responsibility in the private and public sectors-the bases were confirmed in Report No. 35 which applied the specific criteria when examining the pay of the higher echelons in the public sector.
10. In considering the application of increases to bring consultant salaries in line with these posts, the Organisation would argue that favourable economic factors exist to reverse the remuneration imbalance.
11. Discussions on performance related payments have recently commenced for senior management grades in the local authority sector, in contrast to the delayed arrangements in place for the claimants who received an interim award.
12. The claimants are possibly in a particularly disadvantaged position given that the Review Body may feel prevented from reconvening without being obliged to assess the remuneration of all the other grades covered in Report no. 38. The option of having the matter reviewed by the Labour Court could not be seen to be affecting the integrity of the Review Body for this reason.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The National Taskforce in expected to issue an Interim Report in early 2003.
2. The Task Force is at present proceeding with its highly complex task of designing a new service and hospital staffing structure. When completed it will have developed a template for the restructuring of the hospital services within 12 months of its inaugural meeting. It is expected that the recommendations will be piloted in the East Coast Area Health Board and the Mid Western Health Board in the first instance.
3. To predicate an increase in salary where (as is acknowledged in Report No. 38) there has been no change in work practices and to do so before the interim report of the National Task Force on medical staffing goes against the fundamental thrust of Report No.38 in relation to consultants.
4. Consideration of the Consultant's pay claim should await the Report of the National Task Force and allow for the completion of the ongoing negotiations on a revised Consultant's contract. The recommendations of the National Task Force will have significant implications for the work practices of other groups such as NCHDs. Nurses, clerical administration grades, professions allied to medicine and general support staff.
5. Consultant contract negotiations with the I.H.C.A and the I.M.O. commenced following Report No. 38 under the chairmanship of Mr. Mark Connaughton S.C. in June 2001.
6. Both the Employers and Medical Representative Organisations have cognizant of Report No. 38 in their general approach, in that negotiations to change the current structure of Consultant appointments should not pre-empt or anticipate recommendations of the National Task Force.
7. The new structure of the contractual arrangements and the fundamental re-appraisal envisaged by Report No. 38 will only become apparent following the interim report of the National Talk Force.
8. The IHCA and the IMO have indicated that the substantive negotiations should only begin in the context of the National Task Force recommendations.
9. The employers are concerned that any finding for the claimants in this case could act as a precedent for other groups that are covered by the Review body to seek to re-open their position. The Review Body recommended an increase of 10% in consultants salary in Report no. 38. The Union are in effect seeking to reopen that finding even though no change has occurred in their work practices and they are still subject to the same contractual conditions as was the case when they were reviewed by the Review Body.
10. Work arising from the Medical Manpower Forum would suggest that if a new model of service delivery is endorsed by the Government then the role and working pattern of Hospital Consultants will need to change. However, none of the changes envisaged have yet been negotiated or put in place and the role of the consultant has not fundamentally altered. The Review Body suggested that only if there were changes arising from the Forum Report should there be a need to address the remuneration of consultants.
11. The changes in service delivery and staff roles anticipated in report no. 38 are in the process of being developed, quantified and costed by the National Task Force. The primary rationale for the Review Body's position was not to prejudice anything that might emerge from the Medical Manpower Forum's Report and to allow " a further process of negotiation and evaluation" following the "acceptance of the report (Medical Manpower Forum's) recommendations".
12. Report No 38 envisaged negotiations between the respective parties on new contractual arrangements arising from the fundamental re-appraisal of roles and service requirements arising from the Medical Manpower Report.
13. Any changes arising from the Task Force Report will be the subject of negotiations between the parties in setting the terms of a new contract under current talks chaired by Mark Connaughton S.C.
14. To find for the claimants would create a precedent for other groups covered by the Review Body to reopen their positions in an attempt to emulate the claimants. This would be particularly invidious where there has been no agreed changes in work practices for consultants.
RECOMMENDATION:
The consultants claim that theirs is the only group considered by the Review Body, to have been given an interim payment, and as a result their review is incomplete. The Review Body did make reference to the Task Force exercise that was likely to propose major changes, resulting in further pay increases, but the Union argues that delays being experienced are likely to mean that the Review Body will be sitting again before this exercise in complete.
Management take issue with the Union's interpretation of the term "interim payment". They are satisfied that the Review Body made an award of 10% and noted that changes of significant nature were likely to be required in this area, which could bring further negotiated increases in salary. However, without agreement to these proposed changes they would see no justification for any further salary increase.
They argue that the delays in getting into the negotiations are to a large extent caused by the Union setting down conditions for talks, and they do not accept that a payment should be made to take into account these delays.
Further argument was made by the Union that two groups who were not affected by the Task Force review, should get further increases straight away. Management's response to this was that unless there are major changes required then there is no justification for any further pay increases.
The logical way to resolve this dispute would be to ask the Review Body what they meant by the term "interim", but this option appears to not be available to the parties. The Court would ideally recommend that the parties revert back to the Review Body for a clarification on whether:
(1) They have completed their exercise and see the implementation of the Task Force Exercise as an extra, outside their domain, that could result in extra payments
or
(2) They believe their exercise is incomplete and would have expected that on agreement to the proposed changes, a negotiated increase would be
added to the 10%, and that only then would their review be completed.
However, it is clear that either way claims for further increases in addition to the 10% can only be addressed when negotiations have concluded on the proposed changes.
The Court therefore, recommends that the parties enter into immediate discussions to complete the negotiations on the changes that are proposed. A timetable should be agreed for this exercise and every effort made to complete it within a reasonable time frame.
The Court further recommends strongly that in areas where the Review Body recommended that payments be paid these should be implemented forthwith. These are covered in the Report in sections 10.29 to 10.34. In areas where discussions have not yet taken place the HSEA should take an active role in speeding up these discussions.
SUMMARY:
The Court takes the view that the Review Body is the proper forum for setting salary scales for this group. In the absence of any contradictory evidence the Court is of the view that the Review Body has completed this exercise.
The other items referred to are productivity and operational changes which require discussions, negotiations and agreement that will then result in extra payments outside the Review Body's scope.
The Court therefore does not recommended a further payment to this group until the negotiations have been completed but does recommend their speedy completion.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
3rd February, 2003______________________
HMCD/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.