FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE - EMPLOYERS AGENCY (HSE-EA) - AND - IRISH MEDICAL ORGANISATION (IMO) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Various issues relating to the General Practice Trainee Contract
BACKGROUND:
2. The Irish Medical Organisation is pursuing three claims on behalf of General Practice (GP) Trainees for an improvement in the terms of their contracts. The principal issue in dispute with the HSE Employers Agency is that the GP Trainees should be placed on the Specialist Trainee Registrar Scale. The other two issues in dispute are a claim for more flexible and family friendly work/life balance arrangements and payment for the extra cost payable for car insurance while on-call.
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 10th April, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th September, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The anomaly arose out of the Non Consultant Hospital Doctors 2000 Agreement which was wrongly interpreted by the HSE as excluding the GP Trainees from the Specialist Trainee pay scale.The Irish College of General Practitioners (ICGP) has confirmed its view that all medical specialists including GP Trainees should be remunerated on the same pay scale.
2. Flexible and part-time contracts are essential in order to attract Doctors into GP Training due to changing demographics. This would also serve to attract and retain candidates of the highest possible calibre.
3. GP Trainees are required to use their cars on a regular basis for the purpose of travel between surgeries and to carry out house calls to visit their patients. They should be appropriately remunerated in order to cover the extra premium required by their motor insurance company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. GP Trainee responsibilities, qualifications, training and research are not on a par with the requirements of the Specialist Registrars. The cost of conceding the claim would be €5.5 million per year and is therefore clearly in breach of Section 27.7 of the Towards 2016 Agreement.
2. To date all applications for flexible training have been favourable received, to vary this reasonable approach would cause considerable logistical problems.
3. In years 1 and 2 the GP Trainee would travel with the Registrar in his car therefore incurring no travelling expenses, in years 3 and 4 the current on-call allowance is adequate to compensate for any travel expenses incurred.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and recommends as follows in relation to each of the Union's claims:-
Claim for Payment of Specialist Registrar Salary Scale
The Court is satisfied that the Register at issue has effectively excluded trainees in general practice from its scope since its inception. In practical terms the object or purpose of the Union's claim is to extend the scope of the Register to include those undergoing general practice training so as to entitle them to the higher rate of remuneration applicable to those within the ambit of the scheme.
In the Court's view this is, in its practical purpose and effect, a cost increasing claim. It is thus precluded by Clause 27.7 of the Public Service Pay Agreement associated with Towards 2016.
In these circumstances the Court cannot recommend its concession.
Additional Insurance Costs:
The Court recommends that where individuals incur necessary and verified additional costs in providing work related motor insurance, the additional element of their premium should be reimbursed.
Flexible Training:
The parties should negotiate and implement a protocol to facilitate flexible training arrangements to accommodate family responsibilities Such arrangements should have full regard to the need to balance such responsibilities with the needs of the service.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th September, 2008______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.