FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE - AND - IRISH MEDICAL ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. New Contracts / Payments relating to the implementation of the European Working Time Directive.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a number of matters arising from the implementation of the European Working Time Directive in relation to Non-Consultants Hospital Doctors.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of extensive discussions under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, a High Court Settlementand a previous Labour Court Recommendation (LRC19559). As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred back as arranged to the Labour Court on the 28th October, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th December, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The key objectives of the IMO are to ensure continued best practice regarding the training of NCHDs, a safe and legal roster and the protection of their income and terms and conditions of employment
2. Compared to the other regulated health sector professionals the salary scales for NCHDs are lower in spite of longer pre-entry training.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. These claims arise at a time when the most serious strains are prevailing on the public finances in general and on the health services in particular. While acknowledging the legal obligations facing the HSE it must be noted that the IMO claims would cost in excess of €300 million per annum.
2. The provisions of the recent budget require the health service employers to make further savings in the region of €400 million over and above the cost saving exercises that have had to be implemented in 2008 and 2009.
RECOMMENDATION:
1.Introduction
1.1. This matter came before the Court against the background of prolonged negotiations between the parties on a new contract of employment for Non-Consultant Hospital Doctors (NCHDs). While significant progress was made in the course of conciliation at the Labour Relations Commission agreement could not be reached on a number of issues. It was agreed that those issues would be referred to the Court for adjudication. While these issues were referred pursuant to S.26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (which provides for non-binding recommendations), the parties agreed to be bound by the recommendations of the Court
1.2 This Recommendation sets out how, in the opinion of the Court, these outstanding issues should be resolved. The recommendation deals only with those issues identified in the course of the hearing as being in dispute.
1.3 The solutions recommended should be incorporated in a formal contract document, together with matters already agreed, the drafting of which is a matter for the parties. The drafting process should be completed within two weeks from the date on which this recommendation is communicated to the parties. Should any disagreement arise between the parties on the drafting of the document the point(s) of disagreement should be referred back to the Court promptly and the Court will then issue a supplemental recommendation without the necessity of a further hearing.
The recommendations of the Court are as follows: -
2Preamble.
2.1 The contract document should expressly state that it takes precedence over any inconsistent provision in previously agreed documents regulating the terms and conditions of employment of NCHDs. Where there is any conflict between any provision of the contract document and any prior instrument, the provision in the contract document should prevail.
3.Registration Status and Designation of Posts.
3.1 The contract document should specify that the registration of NCHDs and the designation of posts must comport fully with the relevant provision of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007.
3.2 While the rates of pay and the terms and conditions of employment set out in the contract document should apply equally to all NCHDs, specific provision should be made to accommodate the training requirements of particular posts.
4.Hours of Work
4.1Lunch Break
The current practice of providing a paid lunch break should be retained
4.2Averaging
- Working hours, for the purpose of calculating overtime, should be averaged over a pay reference period in line with the NCHD’s roster.
5.1 The Court does not recommend any change in the current arrangements whereby induction training before the commencement of the employment relationship is not paid, while induction training during the currency of the employment relationship is paid.
6.Medical Education and Training
6.1Contractual Requirements
- The contract document should reflect the statutory requirement for NCHDs to participate in either specialist training or competence assurance programmes.
In that regard the current arrangements regarding non-clinical training days should continue and be provided for in the contract document
- The Court recommends that the Management’s proposal for the replacement of the current system of paying vouched training grants with an arrangement whereby the HSE would directly provide appropriate training should be accepted. This should be subject to NCHDs having an appropriate level of autonomy in selection of and participation in training.
The parties should draft an appropriate clause giving effect to this recommendation, in accordance with paragraph 1.3 above.
7.1. The Court recommends that the entitlement of NCHDs to cumulative leave be fixed at 18 days per six months inclusive of examination leave, course and conference leave, interview leave and study leave.
8.Salary
8.1 The Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim for a salary increase.
9.Overtime Rates
9.1. Having regard to the recommendation contained at 4.2 above the Court recommends that the current overtime premium of time plus one-quarter be increased to time plus one half. Apart from this adjustment and the change recommended at 4.2 above all other arrangements and payments relating to overtime should continue.
10.On-Call
10.1. The Court recommends that the rental and installation costs of a land telephone be reimbursed to NCHDs who are required to be on-call.
10.2. The Court does not recommend any charge in the current payments in respect of on-call.
11.Incremental Credit
11.1 The Court does not recommend any change in the current arrangements relating to incremental credit
12.Review
12.1 The Court recommends that the contract document be reviewed in 2014.
13.Locum Cover
13.1 The Court recommends that the Management proposals on the provision of locum cover be accepted and incorporated in the contract document. The contract document should place a clear obligation on management to operate this provision so as to ensure strict compliance with the EWTD.
14.GP Registrars
14.1 The Court recommends that the current arrangement in relation to GP Registrars should continue.
15Qualification Allowance
15.1 The Court recommends that the qualification allowances should be discontinued
16.Living out Allowance
16.1 The Court recommends that the living out allowance be continued at its current value
17. Postgraduate Medical and Dental Grant17.1. The Court recommends that these grants be discontinued in light of the recommendation made at 6.2 above.
18.Travelling Expenses for Attendance at Interview
18.1 The Court recommends that travelling expenses for attending at interview be paid in line with general public service policy on reimbursement of such expenses.
19.Relocation Expenses
19.1 The Court recommends that relocation expenses be reimbursed subject to a maximum of €500 in any case.
20Unsocial Hours Payment
20.1 The Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim for an unsocial hours payment
21Compensation for Loss of Earnings
21.1 In line with its general approach to such claims, the Court does not recommend concessions of the Union’s claim for loss of overtime earnings arising from the application of the European Working Time Directive.
21.2 It is noted that the Union anticipates some diminution in the amount of regular rostered overtime arising from factors other than the application of the Directive. Management do not believe that there will be reduction in the requirement for overtime other that that arising from compliance with the Directive.
21.3. This matter should be addressed by the parties after the new contract has been in operation for a period of 12 months. Should it transpire that the introduction of the new contract results in a reduction in the amount of regular rostered overtime (other than in consequence of compliance with the Directive) the matter should be discussed between the parties at that stage. In those discussions the parties should have full regard to the amount of loss, if any, and the financial circumstances of the HSE at that time.
22.Introduction of Annual Operational Allowance
22.1 The Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim for an operational allowance.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd December, 2009______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.