FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSEA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Cardiac Allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for the application of benchmarking award to a Cardiac Allowance in respect of Ambulance Personnel throughout the Country. The Union are seeking to have the application of the award made to the Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and the Emergency Medical Controller (EMC) i.e 25% increase respectively, applied to the Cardiac Allowance and to be applied from the appropriate payment dates. Management rejected the claim.
- 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 October, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd February, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clause 6.6 of the Benchmarking Report stated that the normal arrangements in the sector should be applied.
2. The 1997 Collective Agreement on the pay and special increases due from 1993 were applied to the allowance.
3. A letter dated March 1996 from the HSEA to SIPTU stated " The Cardiac Allowance will in future be revised in accordance with the wage movements for Ambulance Personnel".
4. The Union are requesting a recommendation that is in line with past practice and to conform with the March 1996 letter, that the Cardiac Allowance be increased in line with all wage movements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Benchmarking Report made no specific reference to the ambulance service or health service in it's comments at 6.6 on allowances.
2. Application of a grade specific increase to an allowance, as sought by the Union, will have major implications for the various grades in the health service, who are in receipt of an allowance.
3. The PSBB Report , Section 6.6 states that....."Allowances fall to be adjusted in accordance with normal custom and practice".In the context of the health service, allowances have not increased in relation to their pay award by the PSBB, also, in the context of custom and practice and allowances referred to by the PSBB, the Cardiac Allowance did not get special increases as provided for in the PNR and PCW.
4. The Claim is cost increasing and in breach of the provisions of Sustaining Progress. The claim has implications for other allowances payable both in the health sector and the wider public service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union sought the application of Benchmarking awards to the Cardiac Allowance in line with HSEA' policy as outlined in its letter to SIPTU in March 1996, which stated that the allowance "will in future be revised in accordance with wage movements for Ambulance Personnel".
The PSBB Report in Section 6.6 stated that ....."Allowances fall to be adjusted in accordance with normal custom and practice".
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the Cardiac Allowance is an allowance in the nature of pay and should therefore be adjusted in line with the pay awards granted to Ambulance Personnel (EMT's and EMC's) under Benchmarking.
Therefore, the Court recommends concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st February 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.