FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE (NATIONAL AMBULANCE SERVICE) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1. Redeployment Options, 2. Earnings Ring-Fenced, 3. Redeployment Supports & 4. Ballyshannon Option Availability.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Employer's decision to reduce the number of National Ambulance Service control centre from nine to two. 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 25th October, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th December, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Employer's proposals will cause significant disruption to the Workers concerned.
2 The Workers' earnings should be ring-fenced after redeployment.
3 The Workers concerned are entitled to avail of the redeployment options set out in the Public Service Agreement.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Employer's proposals are fully in line with the provisions of the Public Service Agreement.
2 The Employer's priority in redeployment is to maximise its 'on the road posts'.
3. The Public Sector Agreement sets out a formula for dealing with any loss of earnings.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was referred to the Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Acts and in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Agreement 2010 -2014.
Under its terms of the Court is required to apply the provisions of the Agreement to the facts of any dispute that comes before it.
In this case the National Ambulance Service has decided to close a number of local ambulance control centres and concentrate its operations in two locations Ballyshannon in County Donegal and Tallaght in County Dublin.
The Union is not contesting this decision. Instead the Union argues that proposals advanced by the National Ambulance Service to deal with the impact of the planned restructuring on the staff affected are neither consistent with the provisions of the Public Service Agreement nor fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Management argues that it is applying the terms of the Public Service Agreement to the staff affected in a fair and reasonable manner.
The Court notes that the parties have concluded an agreement that addresses a large number of the issues that arose out of the planned restructuring. However four issues remain outstanding and have been referred to the Court for recommendation. The issues in dispute are: -
- 1. Redeployment options for staff arising from the closure of seven existing control centres
2. Ballyshannon – redeployment option for Staff currently located there
3. Protection of Earnings
4. Redeployment Supports
Redeployment Options:
Both sides made extensive submissions on this matter. Having examined the submissions in detail and having reviewed the terms of the Public Service Agreement the Court finds that
- •The Agreement provides management with extensive powers to restructure the Health Services and places an obligation on staff to co-operate with such changes.
- Section 1.14 of the Public Service Agreement provides “ The Parties agree that there will be full cooperation with the arrangements made in the agreements for each sector which are appended to this document. The Parties further agree to work further to develop new collaborative approaches at a local, sectoral or Public Service level, including cross sectoral redeployment within the parameters agreed, to deliver significant cost efficiencies while protecting the quality and effectiveness of services provided to the public”.
•However a plain reading of the words of this section also places an obligation on management to address the consequences of any such restructuring in the manner set out in the Agreement.
•The provisions dealing with the management of redeployment within the Public Services generally and the HSE in particular are spread over a number of different sections of the Agreement, all of which must be adhered to by both sides.
•Section 2.14 of the Agreement provides- oWhere the service change will impact on the family commitments and personal or social arrangements of staff, the consultative process will be used to satisfactorily address the issues arising for individuals in advance of the introduction of the change. Opportunities for re-skilling and re-assignment will be promoted as a key method to retain and secure employment in equally attractive roles within the health service where continuation in a current role is not possible.
•Proposals advanced by management to accommodate staff within the Ambulance Service only do not in all circumstances meet this requirement. Section 2.14 entitles staff members to have their issues addressed “satisfactorily”. This may involve staff moving out of the ambulance service into the wider health services or indeed the wider public services to fill identified staff shortages in those sectors.
•Moreover proposals outlined to the Court that put the mental or emotional health of individual staff members at risk of public exposure are ill conceived and do not meet this standard.
•The Court also notes that the Agreement provides (6.1.21 et al) that training will be provided to redeployed staff to compensate for any relevant skills deficit identified in the redeployment process.
Recommendation
In light of these provisions the Court recommends that the parties engage further with a view to applying the full terms of the Agreement to each of the individuals affected and thereby dischare the obligations it places on both side to cooperate with service restructuring on the one hand whilst accommodating affected individuals with relevant, appropriate and meaningful work in the public service, on the other.
The Court further recommends that all redeployed staff be treated in a manner that protects their right to privacy regarding their mental and physical health and their personal circumstances.
Where individual staff members are not satisfied with the outcome of those discussions they should invoke the adjudication provisions set out in the Agreement with a view to achieving a satisfactory outcome.
This process should not delay the implementation of the restructuring arrangements proposed by Management and should be completed within the timescales set out in the Agreement. Equally staff should not suffer any deterioration in their earnings whilst this process is completed.
Protection of Earnings:
The Union argues that redeployed staff should have their earnings protected irrespective of the shift patterns attached to the work to which they are redeployed. Management argues that the Public Service Agreement protects pay rates but not earnings.
The Agreement is explicit on this point. Section 1.15 provides
- 1.15 There will be no further reductions in the pay rates of serving public servants for the lifetime of this Agreement. This commitment is subject to compliance with the terms of this Agreement
- “I propose that, in the case of redeployment within or across the public service under the arrangements set out in the Agreement, the actual loss of regular and structured earnings (if any) will be established after the redeployment has been in operation for 12 months. Compensation will then be paid equal to one and a half times the annual loss established in the case of each individual affected, payable in two equal instalments a year apart.”
However the Court notes that Section 2.14 places an obligation on Management to seek to accommodate redeployed staff with “equally attractive roles” either within the Ambulance Service or within the Health or Public Sector generally. Accordingly the consultation process set out in the Agreement must be strictly adhered to so as to mitigate the effect of redeployment on staff where alternative work within the health services or, where appropriate, the public service, that would accommodate both management and staff can be identified.
Recommendation
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim. The Court recommends strict adherence to the provisions of the PSA with a view to mitigating the effect of redeployment on the staff affected.
Ballyshannon Staff Options:
The union argues that staff members employed in the Ballyshannon Control Centre are entitled to opt for redeployment arising out of the restructuring of the Service. Management argues that their jobs are not affected by the planned restructuring of the Service.
Observations:
The extent of the restructuring envisaged in the Agreement is far reaching. Accordingly the provisions of the Agreement dealing with redeployment are equally far reaching. The Agreement sets out a procedure to be followed by both sides where restructuring resulting in redeployment is planned. It says: -
- 6.1.14 Volunteers for redeployment will be sought in the first instance.
6.1.15 Normally redeployment will occur for the reasons set out in paragraphs 6.1.12 and 6.1.13 above.6.1.16 Where such areas are identified all practical options available for employees, including reference to existing transfer lists (where applicable) will be explored
6.1.17 All health service employees, including those on approved leave schemes, will be entitled to apply for consideration for vacancies within their own grade, category or profession
6.1.19 Redeployment may not always be to a role/grade of similar/equal status. However, an employee’s existing pay and terms and conditions of employment will be protected if they participate in the redeployment scheme.
6.1.20 The following criteria will be used generally to determine the suitability of anapplicant for redeployment:-
• the nature of the work;
• qualifications;
• skills and experience required to carry out the work;
• attitude or capability of the individual to undertake the work;
• working arrangements e.g. hours of work, shift arrangements;
• level of responsibility.- Competence, Re-skilling, Education and Training
6.1.21 Where a full skills/competency match does not exist following a redeployment decision appropriate training will be considered to equip the employee with the skills necessary for their new role. The nature of the education/training will be mutually agreed between line management and the employee. A return to the employee’s original position may also be considered where considered practicable.
- Competence, Re-skilling, Education and Training
In this case the staff in Ballyshannon cannot reasonably seek to redeploy to their own jobs as this is inherently meaningless. However they are entitled to apply for consideration for redeployment opportunities outside of the National Ambulance Service that arise elsewhere in the HSE or the Pubic Services generally.
Recommendation
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim. However it does, in a more general sense, recommend that Management comply with the provisions of Sections 6.1.14 et seq. as explained in the preceding paragraph
Redeployment Supports
The Union argues that Management should put specific accommodations in place for staff that are redeployed to Ballyshannon or Tallaght. In particular it argues that staff should qualify for the payment of the additional costs incurred travelling to and from the new locations. It further argues that, in certain circumstances, the cost of emergency overnight accommodation should be reimbursed by the HSE to redeployed staff. Finally it argues that travel time should be allowed as working time for the purposes of compiling rosters.
Management rejects the claim and argues that reasonable transition arrangements will be put in place taking into account the circumstances of each individual.
Recommendation
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim. However, redeployment in the Public Services is now quite common and particularly so in the HSE. The Court recommends that affected staff be accorded the terms of the Public Service Agreement in like manner to other redeployed HSE staff.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
29th January, 2013______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.