FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE MID WESTERN AREA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Change in Roster - Loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to 6 Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) employed by the HSE-West in the Limerick Ambulance Service who are seeking a monetary compensation payment in relation to a loss of earnings claim following a change in roster which occurred on the 12th July 2004. The Union claims that a previously agreed roster carried for the EMTs involved in this claim an extra out-of-board-day (overtime) over and above that of all others involved in the roster. This day of overtime was compulsory for the 6 EMTs. The Union is seeking that the Board facilitate the removal of the inequity in the roster and compensate the EMTs for this loss. The Union is seeking that the formula for the loss should be that agreed under the Castlerea agreement within the Health Services amounting to two and a half times the identified annual loss to employees amounting to €3724.20.
Conciliation Conferences took place on the 30th November, 2004 and 3rd May, 2006. The Company claims that following a meeting on the 22nd September, 2005, a proposal was put forward for resolution of the matter as follows:
- One overtime day to be in-built into the 6 named EMTs rosters per 13 week cycle (i.e. 4 per annum)
- These 4 days to be additional to the normal roster
- May be used for operational or training purposes (as required)
- The overtime days that the 6 EMTs had not taken since the introduction of the new roster (on the 12th July, 2004) to be taken over the following 6 months.
- Management claims that this proposal which in effect maintained the status quo for the 6 EMTs, was rejected by them.
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 3rd August, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th June, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union contends that the difference between both sides in this case is minuscule, given the overall context of what has been put in place and don't see the reasoning why the HSE should continue to refuse to use a tried and trusted formula for compensation for employees.
2. Management claims that this formula only applied to the Psychiatric section of the employment, Ward Attendants and Chefs have been paid this formula in this region. The Union argues why should a loss incurred to EMTs be any different to that incurred to Ward Attendants and Chefs and suggests the only reasoning behind this stance by the HSE is to attempt to ensure that reasonably negotiated agreements are not used to alleviate difficulties in other sections of the employment.
3. The Union believed that it could not agree at this stage to reintroduce the inequity into the roster as suggested by the HSE dated 12th July, 2005. To agree to this would rubbish the original idea of creating an equitable roster among the EMTs. It would also contribute to effectively introducing a roster that was in breach of the Working Time Act, 1979. Rest periods and working time are surely recognised to be the responsibility of both sides.
4. The Union see no merit in going backwards with this issue, the EMTs view that the formula paid to others in the HSE should in fairness be paid to them.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Management in good faith entered into negotiations with SIPTU for the introduction of a new roster in the Limerick Ambulance Station.
2. The new roster which was agreed and accepted democratically by the EMTs in Limerick was seen to provide a number of major advantages to the EMTs working in the area.
3. The Union raised the issue of the 6 EMTs who were covered by the 1978 Agreement at the time of discussions. Management entered into an Industrial Relations process during which the proposal to allow the status quo remain for the 6 EMTs was put forward in that, the 6 EMTs would retain their red circled entitlement to 4 overtime days per year, this was not acceptable.
4. Management does not understand why maintaining the status quo for these 6 staff members is not acceptable to them. Management is not in the business of entering into agreements that are more advantageous to the staff members than the original agreement reached.
5. Management rejects that there has been a loss of earnings with regard to this group and claim that the earning power on both rosters is equal
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has consistently held that the Castlerea formula is limited in its application to the Psychiatric Service. Accordingly on this basis alone the Court cannot recommend its application in this case.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court is satisfied that the proposal put forward by the Board is reasonable. Accordingly the Court recommends that it be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th July, 2007______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.