FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE (SOUTH) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Implementation of LRC Agreement dated 14/10/2008 & Incremental Credit for acting-up.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is on behalf of staff in long-term acting-up positions in the HSE South for incremental credit similar to that granted to staff in the Southern Health Board (SHB) since 2001.The Union claims that agreement was reached at the LRC on the 14th October,2008, that incremental credit would apply tothe workers concerned from that date. Management's position is that (a) the workers have been properly remunerated and (b) it does not have the funding to implement the agreement.
The disputewas referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliationconference took place.
As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th March, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th April, 2011and a pfurther hearing took place on 26th January, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1.The principle of granting incremental credit has been in place since 2001. The
agreement reached at the LRC was a compromise as many of the workers have
been acting-up for 7-8 years, some of them filling substantial posts. However,
the agreement was only to apply from 2008. A similar agreement was reached
with the HSE West in June, 2008.
2.The claim cannot be seen as cost-increasing as the HSE South would have
made savings for a number of years prior to the agreement with people acting
up but not being paid the incremental credit.
HSE SOUTH'S ARGUMENT:
4.1.The issue of remuneration for acting up has been the subject of discussion at
local and national level.A comprehensive Framework Agreement was
reached on a number of issues including long-term acting-up and management
believes that the workers concerned are being properly remunerated.
2.The Union's claim is cost increasing and is precluded by the current Public
Service Agreement.The HSE does not have the capacity to fund the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that the issues giving rise to this dispute have been resolved prospectively in a national agreement concluded in 2011. What is now before the Court is a legacy issue concerning the retrospective application of an agreement entered into in 2008 but never implemented due to changes in the economic circumstances which occurred shortly after that agreement was concluded.
There is also an absence of clarity concerning the extent of what is required in order to address the Union's claim nor is there clarity on the costs that would be associated with its concession.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend that the Union's claim be conceded at this time. Rather, the Court recommends that the parties have further discussions with a view to identifying a resolution of this issue within the current restraints.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th February, 2012.______________________
JF.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.