FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE-WESTERN AREA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Implementation of night roster.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Health Service Executive-Western Area and SIPTU in relation to the implementation of a night roster for 7 staff members at Barr Aille residential care unit in Galway. This service had previously been provided by the Sisters of Mary, who carried out much of the care themselves until the Health Board took over the facility in 2002.
In 2003, a report of a Joint Committee on Social Care professionals abolished the grade of night supervisor and the position was re graded to that of child care worker / leader. The restructuring resulted in an increase in pay and a commitment that adequate training would be provided.
The HSE Western Area are seeking the implementation of a night roster for all staff at Barr Aille.
The Union reject the proposals on the basis that the 7 staff members have established terms and conditions of employment which did not include working night shifts.
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 14th December, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th June, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Staff had requested transfers to other areas within the HSE where there was no requirement to work a night roster but this had not been addressed adequately by management
2. The HSE had assured people that local arrangements at Barr Aille could remain as long as it did not negatively affect the service, although this was subsequently withdrawn. Staff were then invited to re-submit fresh applications for day roster working arrangements which in effect was re-applying for their own jobs.
3. The implementation of a night roster will result in certain staff members leaving their employment due to family commitments. This is unacceptable as their terms and conditions are long established and do not include the night roster.
4. The previously graded General Operatives / Night Supervisor, now known as Child Care workers / leaders wished to remain working nights where possible as they had developed their own family/childcare arrangements based on their previous work patterns.
HSE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is not possible to allow certain staff members to absent themselves from the night roster. There are implications involved in this practice which may result in discrimination claims being brought before the Court.
2. Contracts of employment previously issued by the Sisters of Mercy to their staff clearly stated that it may be necessary to work nights depending on work requirements.
3. The Union had agreed to accept the findings of the Joint Committee on social care professionals vis the operational needs of the service.
4. The refusal to partake in the night roster is at variance with the Flexibility and Change Agenda outlined in Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that those associated with this claim have a well established pattern of
working exclusively on days and had, in the Court's view, a legitimate expectation of that pattern continuing. In these exceptional circumstances the Court considers that a practical solution should be developed between the parties whereby the seven staff concerned can be accommodated on day work. The Court recommends the parties should now agree such arrangements, which can be reviewed from time to time having regard to any practical or operational difficulties which may arise.
The Court makes this recommendation having regard to the exceptional circumstances arising in this case and on the understanding that it will not be cited or relied upon by the Union in support of claims for any other individual or group.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th June, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.