FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE EMPLOYERS AGENCY - AND - IRISH MEDICAL ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Non-payment of retrospective overtime payments to GP Registrars
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is on behalf of 168 GP Registrars(56 x 3 years)for reimbursement of unpaid overtime for years 1997 - 2000.
GP Registrars are Non-Consultant Hospital Doctors (NCHDs) who participate in GP specialist training programmes for a period of 3 - 5 years. Under a 2000 Agreement overtime rates for NCHDs were agreed and, accordingly, all GP Registrars were provided with an on-call allowance of €11, 428. As part of the same Agreement a Verification Board addressed the issue of unpaid overtime for NCHDs for the period 1st January, 1997 to 15th May, 2000. The Board, however, took the view that it was outside its remit to address a number of claims by the GP Registrars for similar retrospection. The HSEA's case is that only five GP Registrars had actually made claims, not 168 as the Union maintains. The HSEA stated that it is not in a position to make any concession on the claim.
The claim was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences at the Labour Relations Commission. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 29th July, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th January, 2008,the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is wholly inequitable that GP Registrars remain unpaid for overtime worked from 1997 - 2000 given that all other grades were reimbursed in full, as determined by the Verification Board.
2. The claim represents a once-off limited cost to the HSEA. It is considerably less than the HSEA's estimate of €4.5 million.
HSEA'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. By common consent it is almost impossible to obtain accurate records of the personnel concerned or the hours that may have been worked, particularly with regard to on-call or call-out services provided.
2. Only 5 out of a possible 168 workers actually made a claim. It would be totally inappropriate to remunerate personnel without any evidence of the scope of the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court does not find merit in the IMO's claim and, therefore, rejects the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th February, 2008______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.