FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE DUBLIN / MID LEINSTER - MIDLAND REGIONAL HOSPITAL TULLAMORE - AND - 100 MULTI TASK ATTENDANTS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Failure By Management To Implement Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns the non implementation of an agreement reached in 2008 between the Health Service Executive and the Union. The Agreement covered the terms of a move from the old hospital premises to a new premises and provided for certain promotional positions for the workers concerned. The Health Service Executive contends that it was precluded from honouring the agreement due to the changed economic environment and the Government's moratorium on Recruitment and Promotion within the Public Service.
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 was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th August, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th May, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The HSE engaged contract cleaners to the hospital within 4 weeks of the agreement being signed off. The contract cleaners remain on site.
2 The agreement between the parties was signed off prior to the introduction of the Government moratorium. The delay in in advertising the agreed promotional posts was not the fault of the Union.
3 This dispute began in 2008 when the HSE failed to deliver on its side of the agreement. The agreement should be fully complied with without any further delay or withdrawn in its entirety and the contract cleaners be removed from the hospital.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Government Moratorium on Recruitment and Promotions within the Public Service precludes management from implementing the terms of the agreement concluded with the Union in 2008.
2 Significant inroads have been made in implementing other important elements of the 2008 agreement.
3 Management conducted its negotiations with the Union in good faith at all times. However the general economic circumstances prevailing in the Country have dictated that strict controls on all areas of Government expenditure have had to be introduced.
4 Management remaind committed to implementing the agreement in full when circumstances permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that there has been an agreement in place between the parties since November 2008 and that both sides remain committed to its implementation. The current financial difficulties not withstanding, the Court recommends that the HSE completes the full implementation of the terms of the agreement before the end of 2010. In the interim the current ad hoc arrangements should remain in place to facilitate the continued and uninterrupted operation of the Hospital
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
21st May, 2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.