FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MUIRIOSA FOUNDATION (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Roster changes under the PSA.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Employer's decision to change working arrangements in relation to night work. 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 4th April, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th July, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 An agreement was reached on this issue between the Employer and the Union in 2008.
2 The terms of this agreement should be respected by the Employer.
3 The agreement is protected by the terms of the Public Sector Agreement.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 These changes were introduced as part of a national policy to move clients into the community.
2 The Public Sector Agreement obliges employees to cooperate in the efficient provision of services.
3. Continuation of current working arrangements is no longer possible given the Employer's financial circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The classification and remuneration of the hours spent on “sleepover” duties is central to this dispute. It is common case that the “sleepover allowance”, currently valued at €44.49 per night, was agreed at a time when sleepover hours were classified as other than working time. “Waking night duty”, which was always classified as “working time” attracted a premium rate of 1.25 times the hourly rate. However since these agreements were concluded “sleepover” duty is now properly classified as “working time”.
The Union contends that, as a consequence of this change of classification of sleepover hours, they should be paid at the “working time” rate.
The employer in this case wishes to transfer staff from “waking night duty” in an institutional setting to “sleepover duty” in a community setting and reduce their pay accordingly. The Union is contesting this on various grounds including, in particular, the reclassification of “sleepover” hours as working time. Management is resisting this position and submits that it is constrained by the terms of the national agreement and by pressure on its budgets.
The Court was told by both sides that this issue is currently the subject of discussion between the parties at national level as it has wide-spread implications for the provision of services in this and other areas of the Health Services.
In these circumstances Court considers it premature to address this issue in isolation of those discussions and in the context of a multifaceted local dispute as any recommendation it might make on this issues will prejudice the national discussions currently underway. The Court is also mindful that the issue has been referred under the terms of the Public Service Agreement and any recommendation issued will in effect be binding on the parties.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the parties to this dispute await the outcome of the national talks currently in progress on this issue. The parties should thereafter address the full range of issues involved in this current dispute in the context of the Public Service Agreement and the outcome of those talks.
The Court further recommends that the parties to the National Talks, that are both parties to these talks also, conclude their discussions as expeditiously as possible to enable the institutions affected address the constraints they are currently facing in a fair, expeditious and efficient manner.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
11th July, 2012______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.