FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE WEST - AND - IRISH NURSES' & MIDWIVES' ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Release of Union activist.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is seeking that the HSE West allow one whole time equivalent post be seconded to undertake Union business on a full time basis in the North West region. At an initial Labour Court hearing in October, 2010, the Court advised the parties to meet again and attempt to resolve the issue.
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 30th April, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th June, 2011 the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The need for localised engagement has increased due to the Public Service Agreement and its provisions. The introduction of this Agreement has left many frontline staff poorly informed as to their rights and obligations.
2. The HSE should apply the same standard to members of this Union in respect of release as it does to other grades because of the frontline nature of the role of nurses and midwives. Nurses make up approximately one third of all employees in the area and should have a representative released given the large numbers.
3.There would be a cost benefit to the Company if the claim was conceded as more issues would get resolved locally and agreed goals under the Public Service Agreement would be attained quicker. The alternative is to have a protracted dispute that will end up at a third party.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer currently facilitates the paid release of trade union activists to attend meetings and conferences. The employer is mindful of its responsibilities under the Labour Relations Commission Code of Practice and discharges that responsibility by way of the above paid time off work for individual meetings.
2.The claim is cost increasing. The additional cost to the Employer is the mid point rate of pay between the minimum of the staff Nurse grade and the maximum of the Clinical Nurse Manager 2 grade.
3.Concession of this claim would reduce the number of frontline staff and the provision of frontline services. The Employer is subject to the national public service recruitment moratorium and therefore would not obtain approval to recruit a replacement nurse.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case.
On the evidence presented to it the Court finds that the release arrangement for shop stewards in the nursing profession within HSE West has been sufficient to enable the union to represent the interests of its members in their individual and collective relations with their employers. Furthermore the Court notes that HSE West has provided reasonable levels of release to members of the INO to attend to internal union organisation at a level consistent with the proper discharge of its statutory obligations in its geographical area of responsibility. The Court further notes that pressures on the public finances has given rise to a severe reduction in staff numbers at a time of increasing demands on the quality and quantity of services provided by the HSE.
The Court also notes that the HSE is undergoing profound change that impacts greatly on staff. The Court also notes that whilst change can cause people to be apprehensive in most cases the changes are beneficial to all concerned.
Arrangements for the proper representation of staff at a time of such profound change are critical but cannot themselves be immune from such a review process. The obligation to do so rests on both the HSE and the relevant trade unions. In this context the NJIC would, in the Court's view, be the appropriate forum for such a review.
Taking all of these matters into account, the Court recommends that the parties keep the matter under review. However the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim at this time.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
15th July, 2011______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.