FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Perfusionists:- Laboratory manager post, development funding, on-call/call out arrangements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Health Service Executive and IMPACT relating to the terms and conditions of employment of approximately 20 Perfusionists employed by the public health service. The issue of the specialist post has been withdrawn and is therefore no longer before the Court.
The issues in dispute are as follows:-
(1)-Establishment of Laboratory Manager post
(2)-Payment of a Continuous Professional Development Allowance
(3)- Review of on-call/call-out rates.
The Union is seeking, for the Chief II Perfusionist in charge, a revision of grade and salary structure to that of Laboratory Manager,with the appropriate retrospection, to restore the differential in grade in recognition of the wider responsibility pertaining to the post.
As regards the payment of a Continuous Professional Development Allowance, the Union is seeking a training budget eqivalent to 1% of the overall running costs of the Perfusion Department to be administered by the Perfusionist in charge.
In terms of the on-call/call-out rates applicable, the Union is seeking time plus one half for call-outs on weekdays, time plus three quarters for call- outs on Saturdays and double time for call-outs on Sundays / Bank Holidays.
The HSE rejects the claim for the establishment of a Laboratory Manager Post on the basis that it is a cost increasing claim precluded under Sustaining Progress and that Perfusionists were not the subject of the report which suggested the establishment of such a post.
An assurance has been given that IMPACT Perfusionist members will receive a share of the Hospital's training budget but not as requested by the Union. In terms of the on-call payment it is impossible to change this system due to financial pressures within the health 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 17th February, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th May, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As regards the establishment of a Laboratory Manager Post for the Perfusionist in charge, it was acknowledged in 1998 of the higher level of responsibility pertaining to the position and the salary of the Chief II Medical Laboratory Technician was applied on a red circled basis. The Chief II salary scale was subsequently reviewed in the Mater Hospital but not applied in the Perfusionist Department.
2. With regard to the payment of a Continuous Professional Development
Allowance, it is essential for Perfusionists to achieve accreditation on an ongoing
basis. Failure to re-register following a mandatory filing of a professional activity
report will result in Perfusionists receiving an "inactive" status which could prevent them from practising.
3. In terms of the review of the on-call /call-out rates, the Perfusionists are required to be on call 1 day in every 3 throughout the year. The current rate of pay for this is linked with the Nursing grade which is uncacceptable The earnings of Perfusionists are linked with that of Medical Scientists which should be reflected in the applicable on-call rate also.
This was an acknowledgement of the greater number of Medical Scientists and the wider managerial responsibilities associated with the position. This claim is an attempt to access broader benefits arising from a process which applied only to the group who were clearly the subject of the expert group findings.2. As regards the payment of a Continuous Professional Development Allowance an assurance has been given that each department will receive a share of the training budget, although not an indentifiable budget, as repercussive claims may follow in other departments.3. The claim for an increase in the on-call /call-out roster is a cost increasing claim which is precluded under Sustaining Progress. Budgetry constraints also exist which prevent increases in the payment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the oral and written presentations of the parties, the Court recommends as follows:-
Call-out / On - call
While the Court considers that this is a cost-increasing claim and is thus precluded under clause 19.6 of Sustaining Progress, the parties should meet in order to agree a more appropriate group with whom the Perfusionists should, in the future, be aligned to for this purpose.
Continuous Professional Development
The Court, particularly in view of the issues surrounding accreditation, does not consider that this need is adequately funded. The Court, accordingly recommends that, for this unique group, an adequate budget be put in place by the hospital for this purpose. This should be done in joint consultation with the Senior Perfusionist.
Claim for Laboratory Manager Post
While not recommending concession of the claim as made, the Court recommends that the claimant's differential be restored on the same basis and on a personal-to holder, red circled basis as existed 1998 to 2002, when the Chief I Grade was amalgamated with the Chief II.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
24th May, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.