FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST PATRICK'S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. (1.) Cleaning of clinical equipment; (2.) Cleaning of smoking shelters and (3.) Sign-Off on Cleaning Schedules.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the assignment of additional duties to staff in the Household Department of St. Patrick's Hospital. 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 21st July 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th September, 2015.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union argues that, under the terms of a 2008 Agreement between the parties and a further Agreement between them in 2012 the cleaning of clinical equipment is part of the duties of the newly agreed post of Health Care Assistant. It argues that Management should honour the terms of those Agreements rather than resile from them and seek to create a new position that does not meet the career progression aspirations of the staff affected.
2. The Union argues that the cleaning of smoking shelters is properly the work of staff employed in the Facilities Department rather than Household cleaning grades.
3. The Union argues that documentation related to the signing-off of completed work is not part of their normal duties and should only be introduced following agreement on appropriate levels of compensation commensurate with the changed work and accountability levels involved.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management argues that there is no role for Health Care Assistants in the current clinical treatment regime in operation in the Hospital. It submits that in that context it has developed an alternative role that better meets its needs and that will provide potential career progression opportunities for the affected grades that are comparable to those available under the 2008 and 2012 Agreements.
2. Management argues that the cleaning of smoking shelters is properly the work of domestic cleaning staff. It further argues that as the Union agreed to leave it to Management to allocate the work as it saw fit it cannot now object to the decision it made.
3. Management argues that in order to maintain proper audit trails, best practice requires that all tasks are signed off when completed. Cleaning tasks are no different and in some respects are more important than other functions carried out in the Hospital that are currently the subject of proper record-keeping to facilitate the safe and efficient management of the Hospital. It finally argues that it is part of the ongoing change commitment the Union has entered into with the hospital and should be supported by the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court recommends as follows:-
Cleaning of Clinical Equipment:-
The Court finds that the parties concluded Agreements in 2008 and 2012 that provide for the development and deployment of Health Care Assistants in a care setting in the Hospital. The Court recommends that the parties honour those Agreements.
Smoking Shelters:-
The Court notes that the Claimants in this case have, in accordance with the 2012 Agreement, carried out the disputed work under protest pending the processing of this matter through agreed procedures. That was the correct action to take. However, such co-operation cannot influence the decision of the Court on the substantive matter before it. That matter must be considered solely on its merits.
The Union told the Court that it agreed to “leave it to Management” to select the category of staff to undertake the disputed work. It would be unreasonable to now reject Management’s decision. Accordingly the Union should give effect to the decision subject to the outcome of the joint further risk assessment underway.
The Court further finds that the work involved is within the range of duties normally carried out by this category of staff. The Court also notes that Management has undertaken to match the additional workload to the resources available in the Department and thereby ensure that nobody will be required to carry a disproportionate share of the extra duties involved.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim for an improvement in annual leave as compensation for the additional work involved. The Court finds that the additional duties come within the scope of normal ongoing change required by the prudent management and development of the services provided by the Hospital.
Sign-Off on Cleaning Schedules:-
The Court finds that the requirement that staff record and sign that particular tasks have been completed is reasonable and proportionate. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CO'R______________________
6th October, 2015Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.