FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE (REPRESENTED BY HSE-EA) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Re-Hearing Arising From LCR18485
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the HSE's refusal to introduce a pension scheme for Home Help Organisers and Assistants in the Eastern Region that is on a par with the scheme available to their statutory employed colleagues. Home help services are supplied by either direct provision by the HSE or by voluntary agencies contracted by the HSE to provide services. The Union is seeking access to the public sector pension scheme for Home Helps Organisers and Assistants employed by these voluntary agencies. The HSE states that access to the public sector pension scheme is strictly limited to those directly employed in the public sector therefore access cannot be extended to persons who are not employees of the HSE.
This dispute was previously heard by the Court in February 2006; the Court stated in LCR18485 that a High Level Group should be established to review the existing models of Home Help service with a view to establishing a standardised high quality service. This High Level Group, comprising representatives of the the HSE, Department of Health and Children, IMPACT and SIPTU, and chaired by an independent chair, was established in March 2006, and issued a report in June 2007. In May 2008, the HSE proposed an approach to the provision of pensions in the Home Help voluntary sector. The Union informed the HSE that was unacceptable becausethe proposals were inappropriate in respect ofHome Help Organisers and Assistants. The HSE's position is that the claim on behalf of Home Help Organisers and Assistants cannot be dealt with in isolation of all outstanding issues concerning Home Help services.
On 31st May 2007, the Union requested that the dispute be referred back to the Labour Court for a full hearing. The HSE agreed to this and, in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, both parties agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th July, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Home Help Organisers and Assistants arede factopublic servants, with pay links to Public Service Clerical Grade staff.
2. The HSE's suggestion that concession of this claim would lead to knock-on claims by other voluntary sector workers is untrue, innacurate and unfair, and is also at variance with the HSE's agreeing to be bound by the recommendation of the Labour Court, per S20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
3.There is no link between Home Help Organisers and Assistants, who are full-time managers of a service with a direct pay link to public sector workers and who have complete budgetary control, with part-time Home Help staff.
HSE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The HSE is not the employer of theseHome Help Organisers and Assistants; 33 voluntary agencies, that are contracted by the HSE to provide a range of Home Help services, are the employers. These voluntary agencies are not entitled to a public service pension funded fron government funds.
2. This is a cost increasing claim and there are no funds available to pay for any costs that would arise from the concession of this claim. The concession of this claim would lead to knock-on claims by other voluntary sector workers.
3.The HSE proposals, which are in line with other Labour Court recommendations where access to a public sector defined benefit pension scheme has been sought, are a fair and reasonable attempt to address this issue.
RECOMMENDATION:
Since the hearing in this dispute, the Court issues Recommendation LCR19297 in a dispute between the HSE and SIPTU involving a similar claim on behalf of Home Helps employed by voluntary bodies. The Court recommended in that case that the parties resume negotiations, with the assistance of the conciliation service of the LRC, with a view to agreeing a final resolution of the claim.
The Court believes that a similar approach is appropriate in respect to the present claim. In that regard the Court would further recommend that the two unions involved should seek to coordinate their approach to the claim, since, in the Court’s view, a different outcome for Home Help Co-ordinators and Assistant Grades, on the one hand and Home Helps on the other is neither desirable nor feasible.
The Court also believes that in these discussions the nature of, and costs associated with, the claim need to be more clearly defined. As presented to the Court the claim is for the provision of a pension scheme in line with the public sector superannuation scheme. While the Claimants are remunerated by reference to public sector rates, they are not public servants. Hence they cannot be included in the public sector scheme.
While a suitable pension scheme could, undoubtedly, be provided by a private sector provider, the costs associated with such provision are clearly of central importance as are issues of portability and the level of benefits which could be provided. Little or no consideration appears to have been given to these questions. Furthermore, the offer of funding made by the HSE appears low and there is no indication as to the pension benefits which might accrue from this level of funding.
In the Court’s view these are issues which will have to be addressed in some depth before the Court could make a useful recommendation of the merits of the dispute. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the parties resume negotiations, at the LRC if necessary, with a view to resolving this dispute. As in the case of Recommendation LCR19297 these discussions should conclude by 30th September 2008, at which point the parties may revert back to the Court.
It is noted that the Union’s claim in relation to sick-pay is under active consideration by the HSE. In these circumstances the Union should await the HSE’s final position.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th July, 2008______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.