FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - BLOOD CLINIC STAFF (MOBILE AND FIXED) (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH NURSES AND MIDWIVES ORGANISATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Organisational changes to Irish Blood Transfusion Services Board Clinic.
BACKGROUND:
2. 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 13 March 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 18 May 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer’s proposal will adversely affect their members in a number of ways, including the current arrangement whereby staff receive time-off-in-lieu for additional hours worked will no longer apply.
2. Staff permanently assigned to D’Olier Street will suffer a reduction in premium payments.
3. The Unions submitted that any changes to current rostering arrangements should introduced on a voluntary basis following consultations.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer submits that having two dedicated teams will improve the service it provides.
2. Two separate and dedicated management teams will be in place.
3. The Employer submits that delivery of training to staff will be easier and more efficient if two separate rosters are in place.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was referred to the Court under the aegis of the Public Services Agreement. The within Recommendation is therefore binding on both parties to the dispute.
The dispute concerns a proposal by the Irish Blood Transfusion Service Board (‘the Employer’) to reorganise the manner in which services are provided at and from its clinic in D’Olier Street in Dublin. Workers employed as Donor Attendants and in Nursing Grades at D’Olier Street provide both a fixed clinic at that address and a mobile clinic that operates at various locations around the country. Currently, staff move between the fixed clinic and mobile service and rosters are managed largely on a volunteer basis. The Employer has proposed to split the staff into two individual dedicated teams, with one team permanently assigned to D’Olier Street and the other permanently assigned to the mobile service. The dispute relates to a total of twenty eight staff.
The proposal outlined by the Employer includes the following elements:
•The option for staff to choose the fixed clinic or the mobile clinic, subject to the skills needs of each team being met;•Discussions with individual staff members to consider how individual/family situations could be facilitated;
•Internal or external (e.g. in HSE) redeployment;
•Mandatory redeployment to occur only in accordance with the terms of the Public Sector Agreement;
•Part-time working arrangements to continue for those who currently have such an arrangement.
Parties’ Submissions
The Unions submit that the Employer’s proposal, if implemented, will adversely affect their members in a number of ways, including:
•The current arrangement whereby staff receive time-off-in-lieu for additional hours worked will no longer apply;•Staff permanently assigned to D’Olier Street will suffer a reduction in premium payments;
•Staff assigned to the mobile clinic will be required to work late shifts on a continuous basis and the arrangement will have a negative effect on such staff members’ ability to achieve work-life balance and their options in relation to availing of annual leave and protective leave.
The Unions also submit that any changes to current rostering arrangements should be introduced on a voluntary basis and following further and more detailed consultations.
The Employer submits that having two dedicated teams, as proposed, will improve the service it provides to donors and result in organisational efficiencies: appropriate skill mixes would be ensured at all times for both the fixed and mobile clinics. It believes that the current arrangement is inefficient in a number of respects. For example, from the Employer’s perspective, there is no continuity in the management of staff: due to the continuous change in working arrangements each week, staff have different managers and supervisors from week to week. Under the proposed new arrangement, two separate and dedicated management teams will be in place.
The Employer also submits that delivery of training to staff will be easier and more time-efficient if two separate rosters are in place rather than the current rotating roster.
The Employer informed the Court that it does not anticipate that the implementation of its proposals will result in a reduction in staffing levels or a loss in earnings for the staff affected.
Recommendation
The Court recommends that the employer’s proposal (including each of the options contained therein to be offered to individual staff members) be accepted with a view to coming into operation no later than 1 September 2018. In implementing its proposals, the employer should exercise its commitment to make appropriate provision for individual workers’ needs on an exceptional basis in a manner consistent with the approach it applied in 2010. The operation of the new arrangements (including its impact, if any, on staff members’ earnings) should be jointly reviewed by the parties after a six-month period. If individual staff members suffer a loss in earnings as a consequence of the changed working arrangements, that loss should be compensated at 1.5 times the annual value of the loss.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
LS______________________
11 June 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.