FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICES EXECUTIVE - AND - TWO WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of a Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-078557-IR-09/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the establishment of the HSE a sub-function dedicated to the subject of emergency management was set up under the overall Population Health Directorate. Five employees who operated in the former Health Boards as Emergency Planing Officers were re-aligned to the new structure and re-titled emergency Management Officers.
Two of these employees were at Grade 6 level and three employees were at Grade 7 level each with a different geographical responsibility.
The Union referred the issue of grading to the Rights Commissioner, in respect of the two staff at Grade 6 level, for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation issued on the 27th November 2009, as follows:-
"I have considered the submissions and arguments put forward by both parties. While noting that the claimant's grievance has been outstanding since 2005, it is difficult to understand how the matter has not been resolved or brought to finality. However, the claimants' grievance is before me under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to 2001. The hearing is in no doubt that the claimants' employer, the HSE, faces an enormous deficit in the year 2010. Furthermore, I cannot ignore the state of the public finances at this point in time. I note that the respondent has stated there will be further restructuring and reorganisation taking place within the area of the claimants' employment. I therefore believe that it is appropriate that the matter should be dealt with in this form."
The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court on the 22nd December, 2009, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th May, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that it is unreasonable to include this specific issue into a national reorganisation of the entire Health Service.
2. The Union contends that the Assistant National Director of HR Operations stated in a letter of 3rd June 2008 that should a job evaluation exercise position the relevant posts at Grade 7 then "it can be acted on." There was however, aGovernment moratorium prohibiting any cost-increasing adjustments in place since September 2007.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The HSE are not in a position to resolve individual or group issues without a wider decision on the change agenda and the delivery of service. This will be predicated on the delivery of service within existing or reduced resources.
2. The HSE is currently required to operate within the provisions of the Government moratorium which clearly prohibits an upgrade, regardless of an adjudication, or evaluation process, either being entered into or concluded.
DECISION:
It seems clear from the information before the Court that the Claimants are in an anomalous position in that they are carrying out identical duties to, and are interchangeable with, others who are differently graded. In the Court's view the continuance of this anomaly is unfair.
The Court is, however, conscious of the constraints placed on the HSE by the current moratorium on re-grading. Nevertheless it is the Court's view that within these constraints the parties should seek a mechanism to rectify the anomalous position in which the claimants are currently placed.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th May, 2010______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.