FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pharmacy Services
BACKGROUND:
2. The staff in St Mary's Hospital, Pheonix Park had a local arrangement whereby they could have prescriptions filled in the Hospital's pharmacy without having to pay the dispensing fee. In 2005, following the reorganisation of pharmacy services in local hospitals, this service was withdrawn by the Hospital. The staff were given to understand that this was a temporary withdrawal but the service has not been restored.
This 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 30th April 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th September 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The pharmacy discount service was a benefit afforded to the staff and as such formed part of their terms and conditions of employment. This service was withdrawn by the Hospital without prior consultation or agreement with the staff.
2. Staff at several other hospitals avail of similar pharmacy discount schemes.
3.The Hospital's unilateral decision to withdraw the pharmacy discount service has placed an additional financial burden on the staff and needs to be resolved as soon as possible.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The staff are not entitled to expect this service as a right. Thispharmacy discount service was not a condition of employment but was provided on an ad-hoc basis at the discretion of the staff in the pharmacy. The State operates a drugs' refund scheme and staff should, like all other citizens, use this scheme to defray their medication costs.
2. It is not the norm for HSE staff to haveprescriptions filled in hospital pharmacies without having to pay the dispensing fee.
3.The concession of this claim, at a time when the HSE is operating under strict financial restraint, would have a negative impact on the delivery of services to patients.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for the restoration of pharmacy services to staff, whereby staff had availed of a facility to purchase pharmaceutical products without having to pay the dispensing fee. This service was withdrawn in 2005 when the pharmacy staffing arrangements ceased.
Management at the Hospital explained that it is currently attempting to restore the pharmacy department and to provide an in-house pharmacy service to patients in the Hospital, when the position of a facility to staff will be reviewed.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court recommends that when an in-house pharmacy service is restored to the Hospital for patients, then the previous arrangement available to staff should be reviewed.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th September, 2008______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.