FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE (UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL GROUP,LIMERICK) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Early start premium
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to an early start allowance.
The Union said that as part of the Haddington Road discussions agreement was reached that any such early start payment, where they existed, would continue to exist and would remain unaffected. A memo from the HSE’s National Director of H.R dated 16/8/13, clearly sets out the retention of such a payment post July 2013.
The Employer said in 2009, the HSE's Terms and Conditions of Employment were updated which clearly set out that in order to qualify for the nightpremium of time +¼, a staff member must work a minimum of 3 hours between 12 am and 7am.
- This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3 November 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28 March 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 7:45am start has been in existence for a long number of years, and pre 2013 had attracted payment for an early start premium of time+ ¼on hours worked in advance of 8:00 am start.
2. The withholding by the employer of the early start payment from new entrants post 2013 was unfounded, unfair and unjust.
3. The Workers who have had this payment withheld since 2013 are entitled to payment of retrospection in full.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As a result of the 2009 changes, payments made to staff prior to 2009 can be classified as “an alternative payment”. The HSE has continued to pay those staff on that basis.
2. Staff who were appointed or promoted after 2009 did not form part of this “alternative” arrangement and therefore did not qualify for the premium payment.
3. This is a cost increasing claim prohibited under the Public Service Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The matter before the Court concerns the arrangements applying to staff who report for work at 7:45am and the premium, if any, to be paid in respect of the period of attendance before 8:00am.
The parties are agreed that staff who were recruited before 2009 and in receipt of a premium payment should continue to receive that payment in accordance with relevant circulars and a communication from the Director of Human Resources of HSE in August 2013. The parties appeared to the Court to be disagreed as to whether all such staff are in receipt of the payment. The Court recommends that the parties engage locally to agree the factual position with regard to the individuals concerned and, wherever a correction is required, that should be done with effect from the date of any error identified.
The Trade Union also seek application of the premium arrangement to staff recruited from 2014 onwards who attend for work at 7:45. It is the Court’s understanding that approximately 100 staff are encompassed in the claim. The parties estimated before the Court that there may have been approximately 4,000 staff recruited across the HSE in the grades represented before the Court since 2014. The parties were not able to outline to the Court the number of such staff involved in early starts (i.e. attendance before 8:00am) and what if any premium arrangement applies to those staff who do early starts.
The Court is asked to make a recommendation as regards the application of a national circular dated 16thAugust 2013 in the absence of any information as regards its application across the HSE to staff employed from 2014 in that grade represented in the within claim who might be working early stats.
In those circumstances the Court recommends that the parties engage and give consideration to the issue at an appropriate national forum.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
10 April, 2017Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.