FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE NORTH WEST - AND - IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Recovery of overpayments made to staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a dispute between the Health Service Executive (HSE) North West and the Irish Nurses Organisation in relation to the recovery of alleged overpayments made to staff employed by the HSE North West.
The alleged overpayments arose when the employers used the PPARS system instead of the CARAPAY system in relation to the payment of premium payments.
The overpayments occurred when the start of shift system was used instead of the 24 hour system in relation to the calculation of premia.
The Union's position is that Management unilaterally changed the system for the calculation of premium payments, at variance with agreed procedures, and is now seeking to recoup the alleged overpayments.
Management's position is that it acted in good faith at all times and the obvious overpayments should be recouped. It also pointed out that it applied arrears where underpayments were made and is justified in seeking to recoup the overpayments.
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 14th August, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th October, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management unilaterally imposed a change in the calculation of payment of premiums. They were immediately informed of the error but did nothing for approximately one year until an intervention at National level by the NSG.
2. It was previously agreed that the parties must agree before changes can be made to the calculation of premium payments. Management did not adhere to these agreements.
3. There are no overpayments in this case. Management issued the payments on the basis of their unilateral decision and are now seeking to recoup these payments. This is not acceptable.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Accountability in the administration of public funds, as well as the provisions of the appropriate legislation, require that all overpayments are recovered.
2. Management acted in good faith at all times in relation to recouping the overpayments. Concession of the Union's claim in relation to the payments would have serious repercussive effects.
3. Overpayments made previously have been recouped without any difficulty.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court relates to an overpayment made to nursing staff during the introduction of the Personnel Payroll and Related Systems (PPARS) in June 2004. The system operated for a period of 15 months, calculating premium payments on night duty which was based on start of shift system instead of the previous method, which was based on a twenty-four hour clock system.
The change in methodology gave rise to some underpayments and some overpayments for the nursing staff involved. The Union disputed this method and despite being brought to their immediate attention, it was not possible to revert back until August 2005.
When the HSE reverted to the original payment system in August 2005, it repaid the underpayments involved for the period in question and sought to recoup the overpayments.
The Union refused to pay the overpayments on the basis that the change in payment system had been unilaterally introduced and HSE had reverted back following intervention by the National Steering Group.
Having considered the submission of both parties, the Court notes that the Union fully accept the employer’s right to recoup overpayments made to staff which arise due to administrative errors, etc - as provided for by section 5 (5) the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. However, the Court is of the view that the circumstances in this case are entirely different and consequently, the Court does not support the HSE’s position to seek recoupment of the overpayments made in these circumstances and therefore, finds in favour of the Union’s position.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th November, 2007______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.