FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE SOUTH (CORK MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE) - AND - PSYCHIATRIC NURSE'S ASSOCIATION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Various issues regarding the implementation of Vision for Change for the Cork Mental Health Services.
BACKGROUND:
2. Funding and staffing for the Cork Mental Health Services have been significantly reduced for 2012. Management has identified measures to reduce costs and improve services. The HSE South is seeking the co-operation of both Unions in implementing the changes in line with the Public Service Agreement. Management introduced the changes on 2nd April 2012. As far as both the Unions are concerned there has been no consultation or engagement on the Vision for Change issues with Management. Management disagree and cite a number of meeting on the subject.
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 16th April, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th May, 2012.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management has not fully engaged nor met all the requirements of the information and consultation process. No risk nor nursing or medical needs assessments have been carried out. It is therefore not clear if the new arrangements will meet quality and clinical requirements.
2. The Unions have a fundamental difficulty with the planned introduction of multi-task attendants beyond that provided for by existing agreements.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Vision for Change programme has been the subject of discussions between HSE South and PNA and SIPTU. Management is committed to achieving a reduction in agency costs and to minimise the use of overtime.
2. Patient safety and quality of service are at the heart of the delivery of healthcare. Both Unions are kept informed on a daily basis of the difficult financial and employment control measures.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submission of all parties to this dispute.
The clinical and care design and policy issues involved in this dispute are not matters for the Court to decide. Accordingly the Court has confined itself to the industrial relations matters that arise in this case.
The Court finds that the provisions of Clause 2.17, 2.18, 2.19 and 2.20 of the Health Services Agreement do not apply to this dispute and that the matter is properly before the Labour Court in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 ('PSA').
The Court further finds that the HSE, in seeking to proceed with the implementation of the restructuring plan for the services in question, has complied with the provisions of the PSA. The Court specifically finds that the HSE has fully complied with the provisions of Clause 2.15 of the Health Services Agreement chapter of the PSA.
The Court finds that there is nothing in the PSA to prevent the HSE introducing a requirement for senior staff to work a reasonable amount of overtime as required by the demands of the service. In this regard the Court finds that the proposal to introduce an on-call requirement for Senior Management grades in the services in question, at the levels and frequency outlined to the Court, is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
Having reviewed the history of the engagement between the parties the Court finds that there is a considerable amount of detail that could be usefully explored by the parties through further discussions. Accordingly the Court recommends that, in parallel with their full co-operation with the introduction of the changes sought, the Unions and Management engage in an intensive process over a three week period to clarify and tease out details that remain vague or ill defined.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
25th May, 2012______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.