FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE SOUTH - AND - INMO DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Reinstatement of Location Allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Union's claim for the reinstatement of a location allowance on behalf of eight of its members employed at Mallow General Hospital. It is the Union's claim that the allowance was unilaterally withdrawn from its members who, the Union contends, remain entitled to payment of the allowance. The Union is seeking restoration of the allowance with immediate effect. The Employer rejects the Union's claim arguing that following a reconfiguration exercise, the Accident and Emergency Department was removed from Mallow General Hospital and as a result the Workers are no longer entitled to the location allowance.
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 11th November, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th April, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers were previously assured that their allowance would be protected.
2. The Workers have been treated in an inequitable manner by the Employer.
3. The Workers have experienced and will continue to suffer financial losses as a result of the Employer's cessation of the allowance.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In accordance with nationally agreed criteria the Workers are no longer entitled to the payment of the allowance.
2. The Employer is not in a position to disregard criteria in order to concede the Union's claim to continue payment of the allowance.
3. The Union's claim is cost-increasing and as such is precluded under the terms of the Public Service Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds that the Union’s case is well founded in respect of the eight named Claimants only.
The Court recommends that the HSE reinstate, with full retrospection, the agreed Location Allowance to the eight Claimants named in this case.
The Court makes this recommendation in the context of the specific facts of this case. The Court has not considered and makes no recommendation on the question as to whether the allowance is properly payable to nursing staff working in either Local Injury Units or Medical Assessment Units of the kind in place in this hospital. That is a matter for the parties to address in direct discussions at national level in the first instance.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
28th April 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.