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: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Payment of overtime rate after eight hours.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are in the region of 4,750 Non-Consultant Hospital Doctors (NCHDs) employed at centres run by the HSE and various Voluntary Hospitals and they are currently only paid overtime when they exceed 39 hours in any given week. The IMO claims that these doctors should have a core 8-hour working-day and overtime should apply when this is exceeded. The HSE rejects this claim on the basis that it is common practice within the health service to pay overtime only after 39 hours are worked in any given week.
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 May, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd December, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is an established fact that the normal working week for NCHDs is 9am to 5pm Monday to Thursday and 9am to 4pm Friday and all work outside of these core hours must be considered to be overtime.
2. The Employer must honour this normal working week and desist from introducing rosters which are purely used as a cost-saving device.
3. The IMO is seeking compensation for those whose income have been suppressed arising from the decisions of the Employer to unilaterally alter the normal working week rosters for NCHDs.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In May/June 2000 a comprehensive agreement between the Employers and the IMO covering pay and conditions for NCHDs was arrived at under the aegis of the Labour Relations Commission. A greatly enhanced overtime payment arrangement was at the centre of this agreement.
2. There are severe financial constraints prevailing in the health services and the claim if conceded would have serious consequences for rosters and possible knock-on implications for other staff employed in the health service.
3. It is a cost-increasing claim and is also in conflict with the provisions of "Towards 2016" which provides for the extension of the core day to 8am to 8pm in respect of the provision of routine services.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the 14th June 2000 the parties to this dispute concluded an agreement on the payment of overtime. The application of that agreement is now in dispute. It is the Union's contention that any hours worked outside the hours of 9am to 5pm Monday to Thursday and 9am to 4pm on Friday should be treated as overtime. The Employer contends that overtime should only be payable in respect of hours worked in excess of 39 per week.
In the course of the hearing it became apparent that a core issue of disagreement between the parties relates to what constitutes the core working hours of NCHDs and whether they can be rostered outside core working hours other than on an overtime basis. That, however, is not the issue before the Court. Any differences between the parties on that point should be discussed further between them.
With regard to the subject-matter of the dispute referred to the Court, it seems clear that the import of the agreement of June, 2000, is that overtime payments only apply after a doctor has worked 39 hours in a week.
Accordingly, the Court concurs with the employers' construction of the agreement.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th January, 2008______________________
JF.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.