FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE SOUTH EAST - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Upgrading Of Manager 1 Posts To Manager 3 Posts
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of it's members employed at the grade of Manager 1 who are seeking to be regraded as Manager 3 in line with the Report of the Expert Group on Various Health Professions (April 2000) . The 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 7th June 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th July, 2017.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
The Union argued that the claimants contend that they have been carrying out the role and function of Manager 3 for some time as a result of increased service delivery obligations within the HSE. The Union stated that the fact the employees in question had been performing Manager 3 tasks for some time, coupled with the recommendations contained in the Report of the Expert Group on Various Health Professionals (April 2000), were legitimate and reasonable arguments for the Court to find in favour of the Union's claim.
EXECUTIVE'S ARGUMENTS:
The Executive stated that it had previously offered to upgrade the exact number of posts as outlined in the Expert Group and Adjudication report. However, The Executive stated, IMPACT were not satisfied with that offer and were now seeking a fivefold increase in the number of staff to be upgraded to Manager 3. Furthermore, The Executive stated it is not within their remit to enhance the terms of the Expert group report/Adjudication Report.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the very extensive submissions of both parties in this dispute.
The Court finds that the issues raised in this case have national implications and require a national framework agreement within which the Court can decide the specifics of the claim before it.
To that end the Court recommends that the parties meet nationally to conclude such an agreement the terms of which should thereafter be applied to the specific circumstances in the HSE South East.
Should the parties fail to conclude such a national framework agreement within six months of the date of this recommendation the Court will reconvene and issue a definitive recommendation of the merits of this claim in the context of the circular letters and other agreements in force at the date on which the claim was referred to the WRC.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
JD______________________
20 July 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.