FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE SOUTH - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION INMO DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Reconfiguration and upgrade of a post within the Nursing Home Support Office.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute between the parties arises from a Management proposal to reconfigure and upgrade a post within the Nursing Home Support Office. The dispute could not be resolved at local level. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 14 September 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 18 October 2018.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union argues that the proposed change has a direct impact on the current post-holders who have practised independently in their own areas and as a team within the Nursing Support Office.
2. There will be an increased workload on the current Continuing Care Placement Co-ordinators (CCPCs) and their autonomy will be reduced.
3. Management has failed to comply with the agreed information and consultation processes from the outset of the proposed upgrading of this post.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management acknowledges the commitment and work of the CCPC staff in the delivery of this challenging service to date and says that the change programme does not negatively impact on the terms and conditions of employment of the existing CCPC staff.
2. Management has confirmed for the Unions and staff that the proposed change programme will be monitored and it remains committed to further engagement with the Unions and staff on this matter.
3.SIPTU and the INMO are parties to the Lansdowne Road Agreement and, as such, that Agreement confirms co-operation with the implementation of change pending the outcome of the industrial relations process.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute between the parties arises from a Management proposal to reconfigure and upgrade a post within the Nursing Home Support Office. Traditionally the Office was staffed by six CNM2s. On the retirement of one member of staff a vacancy arose and Management took the opportunity to reconfigure the service. Management are now proposing that the Office be staffed by five CNM2s and one CNM3.
It is Management's proposal that the current catchment areas of South Lee, North Lee East, North Lee West and North Cork will be amalgamated into one area and be serviced by three CNM2s reducing the number of CNM2s servicing that area by one. The current vacant CNM2 post will be upgraded to a Team Leader/Complex Case Manager at CNM3 level. This post will have responsibility across the region to also include Kerry and West Cork. Management have set out for the Unions the proposed role and principal duties of the new position and the proposed reallocation of work under the new structure. They confirmed to the Court that the only change to Workers’ existing terms and conditions will be a change in the reporting relationship. It is Management’s contention that the new system will assist in preparing the Service to meet the growth in service demands and falls within the parameters of change programmes envisaged by the Public Service Stability Agreement.
It is the Unions' position that they were seeking the filling of the vacant post and that Management’s proposal to resolve the issue by upgrading the post to a CNM3 level is unreasonable and will have a negative impact on the existing CNM2s’ workload. The Unions in their submission to the Court point to the failure by the Employer in the early stages of discussions to set their proposals out in detail. The Unions expressed a concern that the proposed changes would impact negatively on the terms and conditions of the existing staff.
The Unions advised the Court that they were not opposed to the creation of a position at CNM3 level but that this should be additional to and not instead of the vacant CNM2 post.
The Court has carefully read and listened to the oral submissions made on the day by the parties to this dispute. It is the view of the Court that the practical and policy issues identified by the Unions in their submissions are not matters for the Court to decide. Accordingly, the Court has confined itself to the industrial relations matters that arise. The Unions in their submission outlined their concerns about the impact on the current post- holders’ terms and conditions. The Employer confirmed to the Court that other than a change in reporting relationships for existing staff they did not foresee any impact on the existing terms and conditions of employment. The issue of the impact of this change on the workload of staff was disputed by the parties. It is clear to the Court that a clear picture in relation to individual workloads will not emerge until the new structure is up and running.
Therefore, the Court is recommending that the parties engage with the new proposed structure and that a review of same be carried out no later than six months after the new structure is put in place. This review to include the impact of the changed structure on the workload of the CNM2s.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
CC______________________
5 December 2018.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.