FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BROTHERS OF CHARITY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Client/Staff Ratio.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue in dispute, concerning fourteen workers (social care leaders and social care workers), relates to the client/staffing ratio for day roster in the proposed relocation of service users from the Brothers of Charity facility in Bawnmore into two of the four community based and residential houses in Castletroy Co. Limerick. Management has assessed that the proper staff/client ratio in two of the houses would be five clients to one social care leader. The Union claims that the staff/ client mix is insufficient and maintains that an appropriate mix would be five clients to two social care leaders. Management notified staff of a date when the official move would take place but the claimants refused to move on the basis that the staffing issue was not resolved. Workers were suspended, following which industrial action resulted. The Labour Relations Commission intervened and following a number of conciliation conferences the industrial action was called off and staff were allowed to return to work. Agreement was not reached on the client/staff ratio at conciliation and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th April, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 19th April, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union considers that two staff should be rostered to the two houses in dispute from Monday to Friday between the hours of 8.00 am and arrival at day services (usually between 9.00am and 9.30 am), and between departure from day services (usually between 4.30 pm and 5.00 pm) until shift finish at 8.30 pm. The additional staffing will also be in place on Saturdays, Sunday and when day services are not available (usually Public Holidays). This arrangement will stay in place for a six month period during which time a joint evaluation process will take place. The monitors will produce a report dealing with the staff ratio, having closely examined the situation, four weeks before the six months expires. Both parties would agree to give due regard and consideration to the report. The Union would then be in a position to fully cooperate with an immediate relocation and the evaluation process.
2. The Union is also seeking payment from the Employer for the twenty one days that the claimants remained locked out. The Employer had no regard to due process or procedures and the claimants were replaced by care staff (different grade) on a lower rate of pay.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's proposal is unacceptable in that it would require the recruitment of an additional two plus staff which the Employer cannot do. In relation to the staff/client ratio at Castletroy it would operate in the same manner as is the norm within community services (staff/client ratio of one to five). The issue of staff/client ratio can only be the responsibility of the Management group who are professionals with a very in depth knowledge of individuals needs and abilities. Despite the fact that issues do not exist in regard to two of the houses staff still refuse to relocate.
2. The contracts of employment of staff relocating are very clear. Some contain a transfer within the region clause providing for a requirement to transfer within the region and a flexibility to move to a new location in the Limerick area if required. The Employer has spent the past two plus years trying to improve the quality of life for a number of service users currently living in an institutionalised setting in Bawnmore.
3. The Employer considers that the issue of compensation in relation to the days lost through suspension should be discussed locally.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recognises, as do the parties, that the proposed transfer is both desirable and necessary for the welfare of the service users of the organisation. The Court acknowledges the bona fides of all the parties involved in this dispute. Yet the Court is faced with conflicting submissions from two groups of professionals as to the best way to implement what both regard as a desirable and necessary initiative.
The Court notes the submission made by management that service users will require an initial period of adjustment to the new environment. It seems reasonable to the Court that during that period some additional staffing should be provided during the key periods identified by the Union at page 11 of its submission.
The Court recommends that so as to break the current impasse and bring about the required relocation, 2 staff members should be rostered to the two disputed houses. This arrangement should remain in place for a period of six months, during which the service users adjust to the new environment, after which it should cease and a ratio of 1:5 should be accepted. It should be clearly understood that this arrangement will be transitory and will not be retained at the expiry of the six-month period.
Loss of earnings.
Having regard to the fact that only two of the houses at issue were in dispute, and the Court's view that staff should have carried out disputed instructions under protest if necessary, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for reimbursement of lost earnings.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th April 2006______________________
todChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.