FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE SOUTH - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Payment of full arrears under Sustaining Progress and T2016
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a dispute between the parties concerning payments withheld by the Health Service Executive South (HSE) under Social Partnership Agreements and Towards 2016. The workers concerned are at various locations in the HSE South area. Under the various National Agreements a requirement that all pay increases are subject to satisfactory modernisation is set out. The HSE established Performance Verification Groups to asses and verify progress. The final decision in determining payment of increases rests with the Secretary general of the Department of Health and Children. In 2007, the Union was in dispute with the HSE over a number of issues which resulted in restricted work practices. The HSE withheld pay increases. Following the intervention of the National Implementation Body, the Union's members ended their industrial action in November 2007. The Secretary General sanctioned payment of 60% of arrears owed to the workers.
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 could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 10th November,2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th April, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union has acted responsibly with the minimum of disruption throughout this long protracted dispute. Management continually refuse to find settlement terms and removed members from the payroll rather than fulfil their side of Social Partnership Agreement.
2 Some issues agreed under the N.I.B. Composite Proposals have yet to be agreed and implemented by HSE local management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Under the provisions set out in the Towards 2016 Agreement, the Secretary General may refuse to sanction a payment of the increases due where cooperation with the agenda for modernisation is not forthcoming.
2 The Union breached the terms of the Agreement. Full payment was withheld by the Secretary General in accordance with the Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the Court's view there is adequate justification for the decision of the Secretary General to withhold 40% of the Retrospection due under the relevant Agreements. It is also noted that no issue was taken regarding the procedures followed in arriving at that decision.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend any change in the decision of the Secretary General.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th April, 2010______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.