FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE (IBTS) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AGEMO SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 'Normal ongoing change'
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns what constitutes "normal ongoing change" under Towards 2016. The IBTS is seeking to implement Phase 2 of its three-phase modernisation process. The Unions, who are representing approximately 150 Donor Attendants (DAs), claim that the changes sought are well in excess of normal ongoing change and are seeking a pay increase/upgrading to implement the changes. The IBTS' view is that the claim is clearly in breach of Towards 2016.
The IBTS provides blood supplies to all Irish Hospitals. DAs are involved in the collection of blood from donors and they work as part of a team which also comprises Team Leaders, Doctors, Nurses, Drivers Clerks and Clerical Officers. DAs provide care to donors before, during and after the donation process and are responsible for the blood samples afterwards.
Negotiations on Phase 2 of the modernisation process began in November, 2007. The IBTS was seeking the following changes:
Re-organisation of existing work practices in the donation process,
Deployment of skills acquired in FETAC (Further Education and Training Awards Council) courses,
Revision of clinic opening times.
TheIBTS maintains that the changes sought are minor and are basically a recycling of duties already undertaken by DAs.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commissions and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st July, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th August, 2008. Both parties agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions have consistently informed management that the changes sought under phase 2 were outside Clause 27.11 of Towards 2016. They also made it clear that they would be looking for a pay increase for implementing Phases 2 and 3 of the modernisation process.
2. The changes sought by management would mean a doubling of work for the DAs, including the insertion and withdrawal of the needle when taking blood (venepuncture) from a donor, something previously done by a doctor or nurse. This could not be considered normal ongoing work.
3. The IBTS wants to change opening times of clinics to allow staff to take their breaks before the start of clinics. However, clinics run over time more often than not and it is not practical or good practice to have DAs tired when trying to carry out their duties.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is vital that the IBTS improves its service. Research has shown that the IBTS has a significant problem of high turnover in its donor base and poor donor retention figures. Two problems cited by donors were the length of time needed to give a donation (up to 2.5 hours) and the suitability of clinic times.
2. Approximately 70 staff in the IBTS have volunteered to partake of FETAC level 5 and 6 courses in the last three years. The cost to the IBTS of this training has been in the region of €1 million. The skills acquired by other employees, including FETAC 5 course, have been deployed throughout the health service without a pay claim being awarded.
3. There is very little additional work involved for the DAs, the main thing being the insertion of the needle and this is something they would learn in the FETAC 5 course. They would be supervised at all times by a doctor or nurse.
4. The IBTS wants to find an alternative way of giving break that will significantly reduce or avoid the closure of beds e.g. giving the break before the clinic opens.
RECOMMENDATION:
This case came before the Court pursuant to Clause 27.11 of the Public Service Pay Agreement associated with Towards 2016. In the reference the Court is asked to determine if certain change initiatives proposed by the IBTS constitutes normal ongoing change within the meaning of the agreement.
In previous recommendations on this subject the Court has taken the view that the concept of normal ongoing change must be understood in contradistinction to significant or major change. In practice this often turns on whether the change proposed involves undertaking the same or broadly similar functions in a new or restructured way or whether it involves a substantially different function than hitherto. That question must be answered having regard to the facts of each case and taking account the context in which the issue arose.
In the present case much of the change proposed involves undertaking the same functions as hitherto in a new or restructured way. The change does, however, involve the Donor Attendants undertaking some new duties for which specific training and qualifications are necessary. The Court was told that similar up-skilling is taking place in the broader health sector and that it has not attracted any form of upgrading or additional remuneration.
In the Court’s view the question of whether or not the assignment of these additional functions to staff qualified to carry them out constitutes normal ongoing change can only be answered by reference to what is occurring in the broader health service. To date there is no evidence to suggest that it is regarded, in the broader sector, as warranting regrading of the type sought by the Unions in this case.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the Unions agree to cooperate with the change programme proposed by the Service. In the case of the proposal on the scheduling of breaks discussions should take place between the parties on the implementation of this proposal.
The Court further recommends that the Unions' claim for regrading not be pursued at this time but that it be kept under review in light of any relevant development in the broader health sector.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd September, 2008______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.