FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BROTHERS OF CHARITY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Transfer of Social Care Leader Staff to Community Based Service.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Brothers of Charity and SIPTU in relation to the proposed transfer of Social Care Workers / Leaders from a residential care facility to care facilities within the Community. The issue in dispute concerns an arrangement whereby the Brothers of Charity are seeking that the carers operate sleep-overs as part of their roster.
The Union's position is that other groups of staff be considered for the transfer, not just the Social Leader /Workers. The issue of sleep-over is also unacceptable to the Union on the basis that it does not form part of the workers conditions of employment.
The employer's position is that it is the Social Leader/Worker grade that is the appropriate group to provide the cover and the sleep-over issue is necessary to provide that cover to users of the service.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of August, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of October, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Other groups of staff apart from Social Leader/Worker should also be included in the transfer of the service to the community.
2. It is unacceptable that the workers be forced to "sleep-over" in the facilities, as is not part of their conditions of employment.
3. The workers in question and the Union have been pro-active in attempting to resolve outstanding issues by submitting alternatives to Management.Unfortunately these suggestions were not considered by Management.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The provision of a high quality service is essential to the Brothers of Charity. "Sleep-over" is a requirement of the service and is normal practice in the provision of residential care in the community.
2. The Sustaining Progress Agreement provided for co-operation with change, whereby existing structures and working methods may be altered to ensure that services are provided in the most efficient and effective way.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the parties submissions and to the dilemna which they present.
In the view of the Court, the problem will only be resolved in a practical rather than a pecuniary way. The positions put before the Court are, as they stand, irreconcileable.
The Court's view is that the only way to resolve this dispute is by ensuring that there are sufficient staff to cover all the duties without staff having a liability to be at their place of work for an extra 100 hours per month.
Accordingly, the Court recomends that the parties re-engage to work out what the requirements are to allow this long delayed and much needed initiative to go ahead. When agreement is reached, the parties should jointly approach the HSE in the matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
30th November, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.