FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST VINCENTS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL - AND - INMO DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. On-Call Payments , Call Out Rates and Compensatory Time Off.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between St Vincent's University Hospital (Liver Transplant Unit) and the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation in relation to three issues; a) on call payments, b) call out rates and c) compensatory time off. Management's position is that it must align the on call and call out rates to those agreed nationally and also to eliminate compensatory time off. The Union rejects Management's position on the basis that the enhanced on call and call out rates are agreed to take account of the excessive commitment of the staff involved.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 2nd May, 2012 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6th July, 2012.
UNION ARGUMENT:
3
- The on call/call out rates and compensatory time off arrangements are in place for many years. These are enhanced to take into account the excessive nature of the commitment to provide on call/ call out arrangements in the Liver Transplant Unit of the Hospital and the inordinate amount of time spent in the Hospital when called. The Union does not accept alignment to national rates and the elimination of compensatory time off as the commitment of the workers to this service is clearly way beyond normal levels.
- The Transplant process is a highly specialised procedure, which needs very special skills and facilities.
MANAGEMENT ARGUMENT:
4 1 Management is seeking to align the on call/call out rates to national levels for cost efficiency purposes and to provide an integrated and enhanced service. The alternative proposals put forward by management are reasonable in the circumstances and should be accepted by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Hospital’s proposals to change the on-call/callout arrangements and ‘time off’ for Clinical Nurse Managers, Coordinators and Nurses involved in its National Liver Transplant Services. The rationale for the service change was driven by the Strategic Development Plan for the Hospital’s Hepatology and Liver Transplant Services.
The case was before the Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 and not under the terms of Clause 1.24 of the Public Sector Agreement 2010-2014.
The Hospital propose to remove the locally agreed enhanced on call and call out payments which are paid to these staff over and above the nationally agreed theatre rates. Management also sought to replace the ‘time off’ arrangements with adequate rest periods when called out, similar to those existing in theatre.
The Union rejected the Hospital’s proposals, stating that the current arrangements in place for staff of the Liver Transplant originated in 1999 with the introduction of the service, the rates were revised in 2002. It submitted that the rates negotiated in 1999 were in excess of the national on-call and call-out rates in order to take account of the inordinate and excessive commitment to on-call work in the Hospital’s Liver Transplant Services,“where on-call times exceed accepted levels”as referred to in LCR:16261.
The Union also submitted that when called out, staff of the Liver Transplant Service are involved in an inordinate and lengthy time on transplant operations. It contended that the Service was not properly resourced in terms of its staffing requirements.
‘Time-off’
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court notes that there are no national standard provisions in place for ‘time-off’ arrangements. The parties informed the Court that this issue is the subject of discussions at national level; therefore the Court is of the view that it in the circumstances it would not be appropriate for it to make a Recommendation on the issue. The Court is of the view that as the Public Sector Agreement 2010-2014 provides procedures for dealing with matters of this nature; this is where the issue of ‘time-off’ arrangements for the categories involved in this case should be dealt with.
On-Call
The Court understands from the parties that plans are underway to increase the number of Theatre Nurses capable of providing the Liver Transplant Service and this will facilitate standardisation of on-call arrangements. Therefore, the Court recommends that the existing on-call arrangement should be retained until such time as the frequency of on-call arrangements for the staff of the Liver Transplant Service are standardised with similar Theatre Nursing grades.
Co-ordinators and Clinical Nurse Managers should retain their current on-call arrangements until such time as their on-call requirements are standardised with similar job categories/grades.
When the frequency of call-out arrangements is standardised the Court recommends that the Hospital’s proposals should be implemented and in the event of loss of earnings as a result of the change, compensation should be paid in accordance with the Public Sector Agreement 2010-2104 agreed formula – one and a half times the annual loss should be paid in two moieties, the first moiety of 50% of the compensation due should be paid 12 months after the new arrangement becomes operational. The remaining 50% of the amount due should be paid six months thereafter.
Call-out
The Court notes that as part of its initial proposals to align Liver Transplant Service call-out payments with those paid to theatre staff, Management offered to red-circle the call-out rates of those individual staff members of the Liver Transplant Service who are already in receipt of call-out payments over and above the national rates and to introduce the aligned rates as new staff were introduced into the Service. This offer was later withdrawn when no agreement could be reached on Management’s overall proposals.
The Court is of the view that the offer made by Management was reasonable in all the circumstances and recommends its re-instatement.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd August 2012______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.