FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE WEST - AND - INO SIPTU MLSA DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Reconfiguration of Accident and Emergency Services.
BACKGROUND:
2. An agreement was reached on the reconfiguration of Accident and Emergency Services in Nenagh, Ennis, St John's and Limerick Regional Hospitals which meant that 24 hour Accident and Emergency Services will now be provided only in Limerick Regional Hospital. This dispute concerns the loss of earnings which may potentially effect nurses, radiographers and EMTs in Nenagh, Ennis and St John's Hospitals.
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 6th April, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th June, 2009, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers have cooperated fully with thereconfiguration of Accident and Emergency Services.
2. The Workers have suffered a significant loss of earnings as a result of these changes.
3.Although these changes will result in significant cost savings the Employer has refused even to make an offer to the Workers.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer is operating under considerable financial restraints and has to provide the best possible services within its allocated resources.
2. The Employer's priority is the protection of front line service and employment levels.
3.The Employer does not have the financial resources to compensate the Workers for loss of earnings.
RECOMMENDATION:
It seems to the Court that the first issue which the parties need to address is the actual quantum of loss which may accrue to individuals or grades in consequence of the reconfiguration in issue. At present there are no concrete or tangible figures available by which the likely reduction in earnings can be accurately quantified.
The Court recommends that the parties should review the position in that regard after the reconfiguration has been in operation for a period of 12 months. At that point they should assess the loss by reference to the adjusted average payments made under the various headings claimed in the three years immediately preceding the reconfiguration. All available opportunities to offset or mitigate potential loss should be fully availed of and taken into account in this exercise.
When the actual position regarding loss is quantified, as recommended above, the parties should have further discussions on the Union's claims. In those discussions full regard should be had to the prevailing economic and budgetary circumstances of the HSE, the extent of loss suffered and the previous practice of the employer in dealing with loss of earnings in similar circumstances. It should also be noted by the parties that the Court has hitherto distinguished between loss of earnings that are in the nature of contractual entitlements (i.e. where they involve regular rostered overtime or pensionable allowances) and ad hoc payments.
In the interim the Unions should cooperate fully with the continuation of the reconfiguration programme.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th July, 2009______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.