FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL REHABILITATION HOSPITAL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Application of 39-Hour Week
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim is in respect of 34 Health Care Assistant staff employed by the National Rehabilitation Hospital. The dispute relates to application of 39 hour working week. It isManagement’s contention that the Healthcare Assistants, formerly known as Attendants, are not working their contracted basic 39 hours per week. The Union accept that there are discrepancies in the system as it currently operates and expressed their willingness to co-operate in Management’s new rostering arrangements for this group, however, it was not willing to move from a fixed rostering system to a flexible one.
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 30th January, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th May, 2007.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Claimants are contracted to work 39 hours basic to be discharged Monday to Saturday on a 5 over 6 day basis. They are presently not discharging their contracted basic hours notwithstanding the fact that they continue to be paid for same. The Claimants do work additional hours on an over time basis on Sunday for which they are paid the nationally agreed rates of overtime pay for their grade i.e. double time.
2. Management contends that hours worked on an overtime basis are worked and paid for in addition to the basic contracted hours and cannot be taken into account to negate the need for staff to discharge the basic contracted hours.
3. Management believes that the fixed term of rostering no longer meets the needs of patients served or the services provided by the National Rehabilitation Hospital. In accordance with the commitments entered into nationally as part of the "Recognising and Respecting the Role" Agreement, "Sustaining Progress" and "Towards 2016" it is imperative that the Claimants and their Union engage fully with Management to put in place the changes required locally in the interest of patients and services required.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1The Union is willing to enter discussions with Management on how the hours discrepancies would be addressed and where and when they occur. Also time owed to Claimants would form part of these discussions.
2. Through the custom and practice of this rostering arrangements (in place over 40 years) it clearly shows Sunday as a part of the normal working week. To change this arrangement the Union believes would result in a loss of remuneration for the Claimants and also impact most severely on what is considered a much cherished family friendly arrangement.
3. It is the Hospital Management's wish to bring the current rostering arrangements for this group to an end. This would allow the introduction of a roster currently worked by other non-nursing groups to be put in place. The Union believes this would disadvantage the Claimants. The current rostering arrangements allows for planning on a personal basis way in advance.
4 The current rostering also accommodates swapping of rosters and allows for one member of staff to cover another in the case of emergencies at short notice. The Union believes this group to be unique to the Hospital and is currently awaiting the outcome of a re-evaluation of their present grade which if successful will further separate them from other non-nursing staff. On this basis it seems proper that a separate rostering arrangement would remain.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns Management’s contention that 34 Healthcare Assistants, formerly known as Attendants, are not working their contracted basic 39 hours per week.
Due to special arrangements these specific workers work a fixed roster and are contracted to work 39 hours on a 5 over 6 day basis, Monday to Saturday, with compulsory overtime on rostered Sundays. Whereas other groups work 39 hours on a 5 over 7 day basis, Monday to Sunday, with a premium payment being paid on rostered Sundays.
In 2005, whilst Management were investigating a separate issue, it was discovered that the fixed roster, which applies to these workers, does not fulfil the full contracted 39 hours per week. Management now seeks to review the roster in order to ensure that the full contracted hours are covered in the 5 over 6 days, Monday to Saturday roster and secondly, to eliminate the present fixed rostering system and introduce a more flexible system to ensure cover at times when the needs of the Hospital dictate.
The Union accepts that there are discrepancies in the system as it currently operates and expressed their willingness to co-operate in Management’s new rostering arrangements for this group, however, it was not willing to move from a fixed rostering system to a flexible one.
Hospital Management stated to the Court that the rostering arrangements changes sought were within the terms of “co-operation with modernisation, change and flexibility” contained under the terms of “Sustaining Progress”, “Towards 2016” and “Recognising and Respecting the Role” of the Non-Parallel Benchmarking Agreement 2003 for support staff in the health service.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court accepts that the current rostering arrangements need to be addressed to ensure that these workers work their contracted hours and that the needs of the Hospital are being met.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that with the assistance of an independent expert, immediate discussions should take place on agreeing a new flexible rostering arrangement for this group of workers, covering the 39 contracted hours, on a 5 over 6 day basis, Monday to Saturday, with compulsory overtime on rostered Sundays. Furthermore, the Court recommends that the new rostering arrangements should not be fixed, but should be flexible and allow at least two weeks' notice of roster changes.
The Court recommends that these discussions should be finalised within four weeks from the date of this Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th_June, 2007______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.