FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SLIGO GENERAL HOSPITAL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Management proposal to outsource operation of new MRI Unit
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Sligo General Hospital (represented by the Health Service Executive) (HSE) and the Services Industrial Professional Technical Union (SIPTU) in relation to Management's proposal to outsource the newly operational MRI unit in the Hospital. The Unit has in the recent past been operational on a temporary basis in a prefab unit on the hospital grounds. The Unit is currently being operated by a combination of outsourcing to private company Euromedic Ltd and radiography staff employed directly by the Hospital. It is the Union's position that the new Unit within the Hospital should be operated by direct hospital staff and not outsourced to the private Company.
Management's position is that the Hospital is experiencing severe financial difficulties and is unable to obtain approval for the additional staff required to adequately operate the Unit. In addition, it contends that financial contributions from Euromedic Ltd in relation to the service provision would greatly reduce the financial difficulties of operating the Unit.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 20th May, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2nd July, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The operation of the Unit by the private company as well as hospital staff was clearly a temporary measure until the Unit became fully operational within the main hospital. It is unacceptable that Management outsource the operation of the Unit.
2 If outsourced, the Unit would be operational for longer periods and there are no agreeements for directly employed staff to work additional hours. In such circumstances private staff would be required which would be unsatisfactory in terms of service provision and accountability.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management has been unsuccessful in obtaining approval for the recruitment of the required staff to adequately operate the new Unit.
2 The hospital is facing a significant financial deficit and cannot sustain the costs of the Union's claim.
3 The funding which will be provided by the private operator will greatly assist in the day to day running of the Unit and will assist in reducing the current deficit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Havng considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the view of the Court is that in the present circumstances, the proposals put forward by Management on 17th April 2009, as defined by its further letter of 13th May 2009, represent the best way forward on this issue, noting particularly the proposed three-year review, and should be accepted by the Union.
The Court recommends accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
22nd July 2009______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.