FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE WEST - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Designation of Base.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Union's claim that a designated base be assigned to the non-rostered Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) who provide relief cover in the North West region. 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 18th May, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd May, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Workers are entitled to a designated Base.
2 The Workers are flexible and willing to work wherever they are required.
3 The Employer will keep travel to a minimum if it is forced to either pay Workers or provide transport.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Workers were employed to provide temporary cover for absent rostered EMTs.
2 Concession of this claim would undermine the mobility and flexibility of the role the Workers were employed to fulfill.
3. Concession of this cost-increasing claim is precluded by the terms of the Public Sector Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of 33 non-rostered Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) who provide relief cover in the North West region. The Union is seeking the assignment of a designated base for each of the EMT’s in line with rostered EMT’s. The Union highlighted some of the difficulties the non-rostered EMT’s encounter in not having a designated base. It submitted that on occasions the non-rostered EMT may have to travel long distances at his/her own expense in order to provide relief cover within the North West region. Management rejected the claim stating that concession of the claim would be cost increasing claim if travel and subsistence payments were to be made where currently none exist.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is of the view that non-rostered EMT’s should not have to incur excessive journeys to report for work (some examples were given to the Court of journeys involving in excess of 200 mile round trips).
The Court notes that discussions in relation to EMT operations are on-going at national level, these include the issue of relief staff, however, it was not made clear whether the issue of a designated base for non-rostered EMT’s is on the agenda. The Court recommends that the issue of a designated base should await the outcome of that process. However, in the meantime the Court is of the view that the current planning of relief arrangements could be improved upon in order to avoid excessively long journeys. The Court recommends that both parties should meet to discuss how to develop a more effective rostering arrangement for non-rostered EMT’s.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th July, 2012______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.