FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE - AND - MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTISTS' ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Loss Of Earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the HSE's decision in 2008 to close the Cytology Laboratories in Cork and Galway and outsource the work. The Union is seeking compensation for loss of overtime earnings suffered by Medical Scientists who worked in these Laboratories. 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 20th May, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th August, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers have lost regular and rostered overtime payments.
2. There are many well-established precedents for the payment of compensation for the loss of such payments.
3.The Workers should be fully compensated for the considerable financial loss suffered.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The overtime was available to Medical Scientists who volunteered to do this work.
2. The Medical Scientists formerly employed in Cytology were all redeployed to other laboratories where overtime is available.
3.Concession of this cost-increasing claim is precluded by the terms of the 'Croke Park Agreement'.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court concerns a claim for loss of earnings by Medical Scientists who worked in Cytology Laboratories at University College Hospital Galway and Cork University Hospital prior to the decision by HSE to cease Cytology Screening in Ireland in September 2008.
The Union submitted that the Medical Scientists involved suffered significant financial losses to their regular rostered overtime following the closure of the screening laboratories at both Hospitals.
The HSE disputed that the overtime/on-call was regular and rostered and stated that the earnings had arisen in the preceding years to address the substantial backlog in the system.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is of the view that the overtime/on-call earnings which arose in these circumstances do not come within the terms of what the Court would normally consider as regular and rostered overtime earnings and consequently rejects the Union’s claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th September, 2010______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.