FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : EASTERN COMMUNITY WORKS (REPRESENTED BY HSE) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. (1) Regularisation of HSE as employer (2) Application of retrospective pension entitlement
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim - on behalf of 185 Home Care Assistants - is twofold; (1) who is the actual employer - the Union's case is that the HSE is the employer and that the Eastern Community Works (ECW) is the paymaster, and (2) the application of retrospection pension entitlements for the workers. The HSE's case is that, because of its status, the Company is prohibited from joining the superannuation scheme. However, in general, the HSE agrees with the Union's position. It hopes that there will shortly be a resolution (by way of a decision from the Department of Health and Children) to the issue of who is the correct employer and that this in turn will lead to the pension issue being sorted.
The dispute was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th December, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th March, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The dispute has been ongoing for a considerable amount of time with the pension issue, in particular, being first raised in 1996. This has been a source of great concern to the workers.
2. The ECW is fully funded by the HSE and the workers' role is virtually identical to employees in the HSE (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The issues in question are at a very advanced stage between the HSE, the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Finance and it is hoped that there will be an early resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the group of workers here concerned should be regarded as being employees of the HSE. In so doing it is the view of the Court also that recognition should be granted for past service for pension purposes.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
3rd April, 2008______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.