FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SOUTH WEST DOCTORS ON CALL LIMITED (SOUTH DOC) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pension scheme, sick pay scheme, basic pay, premium rates and allowances.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company - known as South Doc - was established by general practitioners in Kerry and Cork to provide doctors in an on-call service at night and at weekends. The claim covers 55 clerical staff and 56 drivers and is for the introduction of a pension scheme, sick pay scheme, basic pay increases, premium rates and allowances. Briefly, the Union's claim is as follows:-
Pension scheme and sick pay scheme:-
The Unionis seeking access to the same schemes that apply to staff in the Health Service Executive Southern Area (HSESA). None apply in the Company at present.
Salary Scales:-
The Union is seeking application of the Clerical Grade 111 Salary Scale plus incremental credit for Clerical Staff and the application of Band 3 Scale plus incremental credit for Drivers.
Premium Rates and Allowances:-
(a) Double time to be paid for Sundays both day and night and Public Holidays day and night.
(b) Time plus one quarter to apply from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. each night.
(c) Time plus one sixth between 6.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. each day.
(d) Saturday Allowances both day and night.
Clerical Staff - €13.81
Drivers - €9.67
The Union first made the claim in August,2003, and it was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of October, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st of February, 2005, in Tralee.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The wages and conditions of employment being sought are already being paid in the North Eastern and Western H.S.E. regions.
2. South Doc is 100% funded by H.S.E.S.A. and it is performing a very valuable service in most parts of the community in Cork and Kerry. The workers concerned are actively involved in the delivery and expansion of these services.
3.The workers have been requested to attend different courses, some of them mandatory, and they must be computer literate. They continue to co-operate with management in the upgrading of skills.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is cost increasing and, as such, is in breach of Sustaining Progress. The Company has committed to applying the terms of Sustaining Progress. The costs associated with the claim are substantial.The estimated overall cost of the claim is €753,629.
2. The Company is a private, non-profit Company which is limited by guarantee. It can only absorb costs where a budget is supplied by the HSESA, and in this case the HSESA has rejected entirely that the terms and conditions being sought are justified or could be funded through an increased budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that this is a newly unionised employment, and the claims before the Court are not precluded by the terms of the pay agreement associated with Sustaining Progress if it can be shown that the pay and conditions of employment of those associated with the claim are out of line with appropriate standards.
The Court is also satisfied that the service provided by the employer is identical in all relevant respects with that provided directly by the Health Service Executive in other regions. It is fully funded by the HSE and is, for all practical purposes, an integral part of the health service. It is, therefore, no different to many other voluntary or non-commercial organisations delivering health services whose employees are aligned with equivalent public sector staff for the purpose of determining their pay and conditions of employment.
The Court can see no justifiable reason as to why the pay and conditions of employment of those associated with this claim should be so out of line with that of others providing the same service to the public but directly employed by the HSE. The Court, therefore, recommends that the Union's claim for parity with appropriate HSE grades be conceded.
The Court is conscious of the practical difficulties, relating to funding, which will have to be addressed before this recommendation could be fully implemented. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the parties should resume negotiations with a view to reaching agreement on appropriate phasing arrangements for the full implementation of the recommendation over a period of not more than two years.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th February, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.