FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE WEST - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION PSYCHIATRIC NURSES ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Removal of payment for Roster Days. Time Accrued on Night Duty
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the HSE West, SIPTU and the PNA in relation to the removal of Roster Days and the removal of the facility to take leave as accumulated whilst on night duty. Managment contends that while a long standing agreement exists on both practices, the Haddington Road Agreement requires that payments and services are prudently managed in the current climate. The Unions contend that as both issues are covered by a collective agreement, it is unacceptable that management unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of employment of its workers.
The matter was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 20th November 2013 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3rd April 2014.
UNIONS' ARGUMENT:
3 1 The two issue in dispute are the subject of collective agreements between the parties. Management cannot unilaterally alter established terms and conditions without the appropriate consultation and negotiation. The Unions are seeking the retrospective payment of the allowances and the restoration of the facility to take Time Off In Lieu.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENT::
4 1 Management were unable to continue to sustain the costs of the additional payments and were required under the Haddington Road Agreement to manage its services more effectively. In those circumstances it had no option but to terminate both practices.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is accepted by the HSE that both issues in dispute are covered in collective agreements between the parties. Both agreements are of long standing.
This Court has consistently pointed out that while no agreement can be immutable for all time, the requirements of orderly industrial relations dictates that parties honour their agreements unless and until they are voluntarily renegotiated or terminated by agreement. There are well established procedures within the HSE whereby either party can seek a change in an existing agreement or practice. Rather than seeking to use those procedures in this case the HSE has simply abrogated the agreement. That approach is repugnant to the requirements of good industrial relations.
The Court recommends that the HSE should abide by the terms of the agreements retrospectively to the date of their purported termination They should also continue to apply the agreements unless they are properly varied or discontinued (including compensating those associated with this claim for all loss suffered in consequence of the purported termination of the agreements).
Should the HSE wish to seek any variation or the termination of the agreements they should utilise normal agreed dispute resolution procedures.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th April 2014______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.