FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appropriate allowance for Emergency Medical Tecnicians (EMT) who receive advanced paramedic training.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns the establishment of a process to determine the appropriate renumeration rate for EMTs who receive advanced paramedic training. Initially, however, this dispute centered on whether - as the union argued - EMTs who receive advanced paramedic training should be renumerated as a new grade or - as the employer argued - through a designated allowance.
After local discussions the union was prepared to discuss an allowance, which management agreed would be linked to pensions and national agreements as applicable from an agreed date.
It was agreed that an independent consultant would be appointed to put a monetary value on the allowance for advanced paramedic training, but there was a disagreement over the inclusion of other HSE grades, Dublin Fire Service and overseas paramedics as comparators. The union also insist that given the evolving role of the post it should be referred seperately to future benchmarking body or have agreement on a further evaluation.
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 5th June, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st January, 2008.
At the Labour Court hearing, the union put a figure of €17,500 p.a. on the allowance in the absence of agreement on a methodology for calculation of the allowance.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Although the role and responsibilities have increased to a huge degree in recent years, this has not been taken into account in the renumeration system for EMTs who have undertaken the advanced training.
2 The expansion of this role is central to the overall development of the health services in line with the Hanley Report. It adds a clinical dimension and considerable extra responsibility beyond the traditional role of an EMT.
3 An allowance should be recommended in the absence of agreement on the methodology, as the matter has gone on for over 18 months.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The creation of a new grade for EMTswho receive advanced paramedic training is an inappropriate and inflexible way to deal with this issue. The current way is by means of an allowance arrived at by an agreed methodology.
2 As EMTs are not the only staff / grades to have received advanced paramedic training, the introduction of an allowance for all such staff is a more equitable way to deal with this issue.
RECOMMENDATION:
The view of the Court is that the monetary amount of the allowance which, the parties have agreed in principle should be awarded to ambulance personnel who have undertaken advanced training with effect from 3rd April 2006 and which should be pensionable and which should attract National Pay Increases, cannot be decided directly by the Court.
The Court is acutely aware of the delay in this case up to this point and recommends that the parties immediately engage the already agreed independent consultant firm to carry out an excercise on the qualifications associated with the advanced role. The parties should be free to put whatever matters and comparators they wish to the consultants, whose task it should be to decide what is and what is not relevant for their consideration. The two expert nominees already identified should then jointly advise the parties on the monetary value of the allowance which is set out in detail in the HSEA letter to SIPTU on 15th May 2006. This whole process should ideally be completed by the end of March 2008. Only in the event of failure to agree on the amount of the allowance should the parties revert to the Court.
The question of whether this should become a grade in its own right is not one for consideration by the Court, but the situation of these workers should be the subject of joint review by the parties no later than the end of 2012.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
30th January 2008______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.