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: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Rate of Pay : Application of Circular 10/71.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to a pay claim. The Union on behalf of four of its members employed as Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTS) with the National Ambulance Service is seeking the retrospective application of Circular 10/71 which entitles the Claimants upon appointment to their positions as EMTs to a salary adjustment equal to the nearest higher corresponding point to their previous salary scales plus an additional increment. The Employer rejects the Union's claim arguing that the position of EMT is not a promotional grade and as a result Circular 10/71 does not apply in this instance.
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 2nd September, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th February, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the Claimants were promoted to the position of EMT.
2. The Union asserts it is custom and practice to apply Circular 10/71 upon promotion to the EMT position.
3. The Employer has treated the Claimants in an inequitable manner by failing to apply Circular 10/71.
4. The Claimants have suffered significant financial losses as a result of the Employer's non-application of the Circular.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimants are paid the appropriate rate of pay for the positions held.
2. The Claimants are not entitled to the application of Circular 10/71.
3. The HSE cannot award incremental credit as it is a cost increasing claim precluded by the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the application of the Department of Health and Children in Circular 10/71Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants under Health Boardsto four Claimants appointed to the position of Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) between 2002 and 2006. On appointment as EMTs they were placed on the minimum point of the EMT scale.
Prior to joining the Ambulance Service the Claimants were on Non-Nursing Grades (Porters/Care Assistants). The Union on behalf of the Claimants sought application of incremental credit in line with Circular 10/71 claiming that their appointment was a promotion and accordingly Circular 10/71 should apply to them.
Management stated that the grade of EMT became a new entry level grade for the Ambulance Service under the Report of the Public Service Benchmarking Body and submitted that the Claimants were correctly placed on the minimum point of the EMT scale on their appointment. It held that this was not a promotion and accordingly that Circular 10/71 did not apply. Furthermore it submitted that the claim was cost-increasing and therefore precluded under Clause 1.27 of the Public Sector Agreement 2010-2014.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court notes the difficulty posed by the length of time it has taken this claim to come to the Court.
The Court is satisfied the grade of EMT became an entry level grade as part of the Benchmarking exercise while in any event this claim may have been initiated before the Public Sector Agreement 2010-2014, the Court must have regard to the terms of Clause 1.27 of that Agreement which precludes trade unions from making or processing cost-increasing claims during the currency of the Agreement. As the claim before the Court involves theprocessingof a cost increasing claim, the Court cannot recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th March 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.