FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE WESTERN AREA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Introduction of Agency Workers
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Health Service Executive-West (HSE West) Ambulance Service and Services Industrial Professional Technical Union (SIPTU) in relation to the introduction of agency workers. The Union contends that agency workers and Private Ambulance Companies are being used which is preventing the placement of direct employees.
Managment's position is that the introduction of agency workers is essential to maintain a high level of customer care based on the recruitment and training issues that currently prevail. It also contends that the ongoing cost of using Private Ambulance Companies is unsustainable and unsatisfactory from a management point of view. It is also claimed that there is ongoing training nationally of up to 100 Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) and a 30% relief factor currently being put in place.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 14th July 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th March 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Management have a preference for the use of agency staff on the basis that they are easier to oversee and supervise than private companies and they provide a recruitment pool should suitable vacancies arise.
2 The current National Wage Agreement Towards 2016 provides for the use of agency workers in emergency situations. Management have made little progress in securing direct employees despite a panel being put in place.
3 There is currently a deficit of 44 staff in Galway, Mayo and Roscommon. The current situation presents additional costs but also prevents workers on existing panels from obtaining pensionable employment.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS
4 1 The introduction of agency workers is the preferred option in the current circumstances. Such staff can avail of permanent positions if suitable vacancies arise.
2 The National Wage Agreement Towards 2016 provides for the introduction of agency staff in emergency situations. Given the cost of using Private Ambulances Companies and the recruitment and training difficulties which currently exist, the introduction of agency staff is an essential part of maintaining a high standard of customer care.
3 There are currently 100 trainee EMTs nationwide. This completion of this process should assist in addressing the problem.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim concerns the Union’s objection to the introduction of agency workers to the Galway Ambulance Service. HSE West Management required the use of such workers to alleviate staffing problems pending the filling of the 30% nationally agreed relief factor being put in place.
The Court understands the Union’s concern regarding the use of agency workers to fill Ambulance Service positions. The Union expressed its fear of such a situation becoming a permanent feature of the Service. Management on the other hand informed the Court that there are currently 100 people nationwide involved in Emergency Medical Technician training, due to completed by the end of 2008, which should help to address the problem.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that the Union should facilitate the use of agency workers in the Galway Ambulance Service while the process of filling the already sanctioned 30% Ambulance Service relief crew is ongoing.
In the event that all the relief crew are not filled by 31st March, 2010, then the Court recommends that an open competition should be held to address the shortfall and the use of agency workers should cease.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th April 2008______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.