FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SHANNON DOC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pay & Terms and Conditions of Employment
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union seeks the application of Health Service Executive (HSE) terms and conditions of employment for all its members and retrospection back to January 2005. The Company rejects this claim. The Company is funded by the HSE. The Union argue therefore, that it is an integral part of the health service, whose employees are aligned with equivalent public sector staff for the purpose of determining their pay and conditions of employment. Following Labour Court Recommendation No. 18089 the Company put a set of proposals to the Union. A submission was made to the HSE for funding to adjust the pay and conditions of employees at the Company but the HSE could not meet this request. In December 2006 following a Conciliation Conference in the Labour Relations Commission, the Company reached agreement with another Union concerning pay and conditions.The Company wished to extend this agreement to all employees. The Union sought to have the agreement amended to reflect their claim for parity with HSE staff.
On the 12th October, 2006 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th October 2007. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 With regard to salary scale, premium rates, pension and sick pay schemes the Union seek parity of pay and conditions for staff at the Company with staff of the HSE. Such a claim was dealt with by the Court in LCR 18089. The Company put forward proposals based on this Recommendation but the Union does not believe that those proposals mirrored in full the HSE conditions applicable in other areas.
2 Retrospection in full for pay, premium rates and sick leave should be paid from 1st January 2005. The Union believes this is a sustainable claim as it was formally lodged in May 2005 and the Company acknowledged it in June 2005.
3 The Union's members should not suffer as a result of the Company refusing to engage in discussions with their Union until mid 2007 especially as what is sought has been applied by the HSE elsewhere.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The date of the 1st of August 2006 for retrospection to be paid from was arrived at with the mediation of the Labour Relations Commission and the Company view it as a reasonable compromise. The majority of staff have accepted it.
2 The Company is not a profit making organisation which receives grant funding from the HSE and concession to any claim would be subject to HSE approval before funding could be made available.
3 The consequences of the implementation of LCR 18089 was to provide very significant improvements in pay and conditions of employment for employees at the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties in this case. Taking into account the views of this Court as set out in LCR 18089 and the circumstances which led up to the hearing, the Court recommends that the HSE terms and conditions of employment should apply to the Claimants with effect from the 1st August 2006. The exact implementation details should be agreed between the parties as early as possible.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
8th December , 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.