FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE SOUTH-EAST - AND - A GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Incremental credit
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim before the Court concerns the non application by the HSE South East of retrospective incremental credit for Workers in long term acting-up positions which is deemed to be outstanding by the Union since LCR20245 and LCR20412 were issued. The HSE contends that the financial resources are not currently available.
On the 20th December, 2012 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th April, 2013.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 This is not a cost increasing claim. The Union is seeking is the implementation of an agreement.
2 It is unacceptable that the HSE have applied more favourable terms to some staff and not to others and have then refused to implement the LRC Agreement.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Due to the current financial position of the HSE the terms of the Labour Relation Commission proposals cannot be implemented. It should be noted that the staff concerned have been appropriately remunerated.
2. Despite alternative options proposed by the Union what is still being claimed is cost-increasing, contrary to Section 1.27 of the Public Service Agreement and therefore cannot be conceded under the current circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for incremental credit for those members of staff in respect of their service while acting-up in higher posts. The staff concerned have had their positions regularised following agreements in 2008 and in 2011. The subject-matter of this claim was before the Court in February 2012 when the Court recommended as follows:-
- “It is noted that the issues giving rise to this dispute have been resolved prospectively in a national agreement concluded in 2011. What is now before the Court is a legacy issue concerning the retrospective application of an agreement entered into in 2008 but never implemented due to changes in the economic circumstances which occurred shortly after that agreement was concluded.
There is also an absence of clarity concerning the extent of what is required in order to address the Union's claim nor is there clarity on the costs that would be associated with its concession.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend that the Union's claim be conceded at this time. Rather, the Court recommends that the parties have further discussions with a view to identifying a resolution of this issue within the current restraints.”
While engagement in such discussions did take place between the parties the matter was not resolved.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court notes that an agreement was reached at national level between HSE and INMO, IMPACT, SIPTU, TEEU & MLSA, in the context of national discussions at the LRC on the successor to Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 where a package was agreed to stand as “a single integrated set of measures”. This agreement identified proposals to deal with incremental credit in acting-up situations and related matters. The Court recommends that this dispute should be resolved in the context of applying this package of measures to the current claim. The Court notes that the agreement provided that “the process must be cost and WTE-neutral now and into the future”.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st May, 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.