FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BROTHERS OF CHARITY SERVICES ROSCOMMON (REPRESENTED BY HSE EMPLOYERS AGENCY) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Failure By Employer To Implement Additional Holidays For Social Care Workers/Leaders As Per Hse Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for the implementation of standardised leave arrangements for Social care Staff. In a Report of the Expert Group on various health professionals issued in April 2000 it was recommended that annual leave entitlements should be standardised for all Social Care Workers. The recommended standardised leave for Social Care Workers varied between 22 and 25 days per annum, depending on length of service. In August, 2001 the Union and the HSEA reached agreement on standardised annual leave for Social Care Workers and Leaders nationally. The Union are seeking the implementation of this agreement for its members in Roscommon. It has been implemented in all other Brothers of Charity Services. The Employer argues that the implementation of the agreed arrangements causes difficulty in the absence of additional funding.
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 reach, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th May 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1The Employer is funded 100% by the HSE. The agreed annual leave arrangements have been implemented in all Brothers of Charity Services in the HSE West area with the exception of Roscommon.
2 There was no moratorium on recruitment in place when the issue was discussed locally and at Conciliation.
3 The present position results in an inequality between staff in Roscommon and those in other areas. This is neither fair nor reasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The implementation of this agreement poses huge problems for the Employer in the absence of additional funding
2 The Employer has been advised by the HSE that no additional funding would be forthcoming to meet this claim.
3 If the Employer has to implement this agreement in the absence of additional funding, it can only be done by a curtailment of services.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court noted that an agreement was concluded between the parties in 2001 to which both sides remain committed. The Court notes the financial difficulties being experienced by the employer. Nevertheless the terms of the agreement are beyond dispute and are long overdue for implementation. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the employer apply the full terms of the agreement to the staff affected in respect of the current and future leave years.
The Court further recommends that the parties engage in further discussions concerning the staff's accrued entitlements since 2001 with a view to agreeing a method of dealing with this matter. In the event that the parties cannot reach agreement before the end of 2010 the matter may be referred back to the Court for a final recommendation
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
27th May, 2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.