FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE AND LOUTH / MEATH HOSPITAL GROUP - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Utilisation of the Intern Scheme (Our Lady of Lourdes).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Unions claim that Management at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital has failed to implement the "Intern Scheme" as set out in the Public Service Stability Agreement, (The Haddington Road Agreement) 2013 - 2016. Management claims that they use Interns as set out in the Agreement where appropriate and where they are financially justified in so doing.
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 by both Unions to the Labour Court on the 27th August, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. Management agreed to the referral.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th October, 2014.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is a long standing agreement between the Unions and Management that Portering, Catering and Health Care Assistant grades will be direct employees of the Hospital. Management is now refusing to comply with the terms of the agreement by contracting out some of the work of these groups. The Unions argue that Agreements freely entered into should be honoured by the parties that concluded them and should supported by the Labour Court.
2. An analysis of the costs involved disclose that the use of Interns in these grades is more cost effective in the relevant period than the use of contracted staff.
3. Management's costings of the financial effectiveness of contractors is misconceived as it makes baseless assumptions to skew the figures against the use of Interns. The Court should examine Management's costings in the context of the Agreements in place and reject any attempt to manipulate them to produce a preferred outcome.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Only by availing of outside contractors for Porters can the flexibility of the cover required for healthcare service be met in the short-term.
2. The high quality service needs in the Catering and Cleaning requirements of the Hospital can only be delivered by the current contracting model.
3. The cost of Interns when measured over a 5 year time scale is more expensive than the present arrangements in place.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds as follows:-
Portering Department
The Court notes that both sides have reached a large measure of agreement in respect of this category of Worker. The Court finds that Management’s proposal to fill casual vacancies initially through redeployment and thereafter by agency staff and finally as a last resort through the use of contracted staff is fair and reasonable and should be accepted by the Unions.
Cleaning Department
The Court recommends that the Unions accept Management’s position in respect of this category of Worker.
Catering Department
The Court finds merit in the Unions’ claim and recommends accordingly.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
5th November, 2014______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.