FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST GABRIEL'S NURSING HOME - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH NURSES AND MIDWIVES ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Cost-Containment Measures.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns cost saving measures the Company is seeking to implement as a consequence of its lower than expected level of income.
The Company in this case took over the nursing home in March 2012. Its financial model for operating the Home was predicated on a particular level of subvention from the NTPF. That level of subvention did not materialise. As a consequence the Company found it necessary to bring its income and expenditure into balance and made proposals to the Unions to bring this about. It is those proposals that are the matters at issue in this case.
This 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 8th October 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd December 2014.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions accept that the Company has financial difficulties and are willing to explore cost saving measures in accordance with the provisions of the Haddington Road Agreement.
4. 1. The business continues to be loss making with agency fees and premium rates crippling the business. All of this is affecting cash flow which will eventually impact the ability to pay the payroll bimonthly.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company is seeking to put in place payroll cost saving measures by way of a reduction in premium rates for long serving staff in order to address its financial difficulties. The Trade Unions while accepting that the Company has financial difficulties do not agree with the measures proposed by the Company and have put forward alternatives.
After the Court Hearing the Court met the parties and suggested, that due to the complexity of the issues, they consider entering into discussions with the assistance of an independent third party to help the Company achieve its objective of cost savings and to address issues raised by the Unions.
Following this meeting the parties engaged informally and reverted to the Court by email correspondence on December 9th. The Company were unwilling to accept the assistance of a third party and outlined a revised position which they had proposed to the Unions in the course of their engagement. The Trade Unions also outlined an updated position to the Court. However, differences remained in their respective positions.
Having carefully considered the submissions presented at the Labour Court hearing and subsequent correspondence following engagement by the parties the Court recommends, that in addition to the cost saving measures outlined in the Company’s email of December 9ththe Trade Unions should, for a period of one year, agree a reduction in the Sunday Premium from double time to time plus seventy five percent. Taking together, the reduction in Sunday premium and the cost saving measures proposed by the Unions the court is of the view that the savings generated will be sufficient to address the financial difficulties outlined by the Company and represent a fair and reasonable response from the staff in all the circumstances of this case. The Court recommends that the measures proposed should be effective from February 1st2015.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
6th January, 2014.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.