FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE DUBLIN NORTH EAST - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Grading of Seven Porters.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Union that, because of their additional duties, seven porters at Louth County Hospital should be upgraded from Band 4 to Band 3. 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 27th November, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th April, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In addition to their portering duties, the Workers are also required to carry out clerical, security and patient-care duties.
2. In recognition of the considerable extra duties carried out by the Workers, local management agreed that they should be upgraded.
3.The HSE has unfairly decided to overrule local management's decision to upgrade the Workers.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The HSE is satisfied that the Workers are correctly graded.
2. The Workers should have progressed this claim through the National Job Evaluation Process.
3.Concession of this claim would undermine nationally-accepted dispute-resolution machinery.
RECOMMENDATION:
In 2003 the Unions and Management in the HSE concluded the 'Recognising and Respecting the Role Agreement' governing the grading and career development structure for support staff within the Health Services. The 'Implementation Guidelines' protocol, concluded in December 2003, provides amongst other things: -
•As a consequence of the above and as and from now no adjustment whatsoever is to be made to any component of the pay and conditions of staff comprehended by this Agreement.
•For example, no grade or staff member can be repositioned from, say, Group 1 to Group 4. No new allowances / differentials can be introduced at any stage in the future as such action will undermine and compromise the ranking system.
•As and from 1/6/2005 grades (either existing or new) will only be able to move from band to band in line with the ranking system.
•The ranking system supersedes all existing agreements.
The issue before the Court is a banding claim and accordingly falls to be dealt with in accordance with the structure agreed between the Unions and the HSE.
The parties advised the Court that the claim has been referred into the national evaluation process but that the relevant committees are currently suspended.
The Court is of the view that if the Union is to be held to the terms of the Agreement of 2003 then the HSE must address the claim in accordance with the processes set out in that Agreement within a reasonable time-frame. Otherwise the Union must be free to pursue the claim through other means.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the claim be processed to conclusion through the agreed national evaluation process within a six month period. In the event that the matter is not progressed to finality, through the agreed grading structure, within that time-scale, the Court will reconsider the matter and issue a final Recommendation on the substantive issue in dispute.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
26th April, 2010______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.