FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE, NORTH WESTERN AREA - AND - IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Relocation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Centre for Nursing and Midwifery Education was moved from Sligo General Hospital to Cregg House at the end of May, 2004. The distance involved is about 3 miles and on the same side of town as the hospital. The Union claim the transfer was imposed and are seeking compensation in the way of ongoing travel expenses and a once-off lump sum in compensation. Of the seven nurse tutors one has since retired. The Union say that the move was imposed, the Board say the move was necessary to allow for the development of services at the General Hospital.
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 24th February, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.There is a long and significant history in the service of disturbance awards.
2. This is a clear breach of a National Agreement and where there has been a forced relocation the principle ofthe Castlerea formula should apply.
3. There is a clause in a National Agreement which determines that there would be no move, if on the principle that if any such a move took place, compensation should accrue.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Board rejects the Union claim that a guarantee on the location of Nurse Education services at the Sligo General Hospital campus was given in the agreement dealing with the transfer of Nurse Teachers to the third level sector.
2. The Board rejects the claim for a compensation award on the basis that it is not supported by the Sustaining Progress agreementor case precedence in respect of this sort of claim in the post Sustaining Progress era.
3. Relocation of this nature is comprehended by the terms of Sustaining Progress and as a cost increasing claim is precluded by that agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court's view is that in the particular and unique circumstances outlined here, the claimants should each receive a once-off compensatory lump sum of €1,500. The retired claimant should receive a sum of €500. The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
15th March, 2005______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.