FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PRESENTATION SISTERS CLONMEL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Roster change
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose when the Employer introduced extensive changes to the current agreed work rosters. It 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 1st October 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th October 2012.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union’s members are the longest-serving Workers with service ranging from seven to fourteen years.
2. The Workers put forward an alternative roster which included nurses and carers and agreed to work evenings and one in every three weekends.
3. The Workers do not believe the other staff would have a difficulty with working their proposed roster.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In November 2009, the Employer reviewed the situation and in view of the higher dependency levels and extra care requirements for the elderly residents, appointed a Nurse Manager.
2. The Nurse Manager carried out a full review of the service and brought her concerns to the Board of Management.
3. It was agreed to move from a care service to a nursing service which necessitated the roster change.
RECOMMENDATION:
- It is clear that the Board of Management believes that the appropriate level of clinical care can only be provided to the residents of the service if the two over four rota is implemented. It is equally clear that the staff who are party to this dispute are not prepared to accept the Management's proposals in that regard. They have put forward a compromise proposal, which they believe can meet the exigencies of the Service but which the management believe to be impracticable.
It seems to the Court that the only viable solution to the current impasse is for the parties to make one final effort to identify a rostering arrangement that can meet the clinical needs of the residents of the Service and which can be supported by all staff.
The Court recommends that the parties should reengage for that purpose and should obtain the services of an agreed independent facilitator with proven expertise in the design of rosters, particularly in the health sector. If the parties cannot agree on such a person the Court will make a nomination. The costs associated with this exercise should be met by the Service. The exercise should commence immediately on acceptance of this Recommendation and should continue up to but not beyond the end of 2012. Any outstanding issues may, at that stage, be referred back to the Court for final adjudication. The Court will facilitate the parties with the earliest possible hearing should that be necessary.
All parties should accept that in this exercise the paramount consideration will be to deliver the appropriate level of care to the residents of the Service.
In the interim the staff associated with this claim should resume working and should commit to the maximum degree of flexibility on an attendance pattern which equates to not less than that envisaged by the one-in-three rota which they proposed. Management should also show maximum flexibility to accommodate the attendance pattern favoured by the individual referred to by the Union in its proposal.
Nothing in this Recommendation is intended to interfere with the rostering of staff who have already accepted the two in four rota.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
18th October 2012Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.