ADJ-00004020

ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00004020

Parties: 

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/12/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Background:

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant, is a Consultant ENT (ear, nose and throat) surgeon employed by the Respondent. He began his employment in this role on 1 May 1994.

The Complainant holds the 2008 Consultant Contract, which was collectively negotiated and nationally agreed. This contract dictates the terms of employment for the vast majority of employed consultant doctors in Ireland.

Section 7(a) of the Contract sets out the hours of the consultant role as 37 per week.

The Haddington Road Agreement in Section 2.4, agreed in May 2013, increased these hours to 39 per week.

Section 7(c)(i)of the Contract states:

“the Consultant may be required to participate in the on-call roster as determined by the Clinical Director / Employer. Payment arrangements for on-call liability are set out at Section 23(i) and provision of call-out services when on-call outside scheduled commitments at Section 23(j).

Section 7(d) of the Contract states:

“As a senior professional employee, the Consultant may be required, from time to time, to work beyond his/her rostered period in line with the exigencies of the service. The Employer will endeavour to ensure that this will be an exceptional rather than a standard requirement.”

Section 23 of the Contract pertains to Salary and Other Payments.

Section 23(a) lists the salaries provided for in the Contract. These salaries have been altered as part of Public Service Pay Agreements.

Section 23(i)of the Contract pertains to B Factor (On-Call) payments, and states that, “An increase in the flat annual payment to €6,000 will take effect from the 1st June 2008. The payments for more onerous rosters will increase by 5% from the same date.” These rates have been revised and will be explained later in this submission.

Section 23(h) of the Contract pertains to C Factor (Call-Out) Payments and states the following:

            “The Consultant will be eligible for payment on a per call-out basis for the provision of on-site services when:

• rostered for on-call duty and is contacted by another medical practitioner in the hospital, by a senior nurse or other member of staff specifically designated for that purpose and attends on-site to provide emergency services;

• rostered for on-call duty and who, in the exercise of his/her professional judgment, attends on-site and performs clinical work of an urgent nature or carries out urgent diagnostic or therapeutic procedures;

• requested by another Consultant to provide on-site services in public hospital / agency to which the Consultant does not have a scheduled commitment and where such services cannot be provided within the Consultant’s scheduled commitment as adjusted by the Clinical Director / Employer. This payment shall be on the basis of the equivalent payment per call-out.

1. 1. 1. Revised structures and rates for C Factor payments from the 1st June 2008 are as follows:

With the exception of the payments referred to at sub-paragraphs g) and h) above the foregoing rates will be increased in line with general round increases under National Pay Agreements.”

The Respondent publishes consolidated pay scales that have been agreed pursuant to Section 23(a) of the contract. This document sets out annual salaries, as well as other relevant payments, for all staff employed by the Respondent

Table E of the Medical Consultants Salary Scales section of these consolidated pay scales as of 1 April 2017 lists the rates for B and C-Factor payments.

The rates listed have been the rates provided for the entire period under review in the matter before you.

Given the circumstances of the Complainants on-call requirement, we believe he is entitled to a B-factor payment of €3,857 per annum, plus an additional payment of €6,693 per annum due to being on a 1:1 roster and receiving between one and eighty call-outs annually.

The Complainant has always received, and continues to receive, the amount referred to in 3.8.

In addition, the Complainant would be entitled to the relevant Emergency Call-Out (C-Factor) payments as listed.

After discussions,the Complainant has been paid C-Factor payments for all instances where he has been required to make an emergency call-out, even when he was deemed not “on-call” by the hospital.

Compensatory rest, also referred to as “rest days,” is a provision of time off to allow a consultant to recover from the disruption of their daily and weekly allocated rest periods as mandated by law.

The provision of compensatory rest is provided for in Section 18(j) of the Contract. It states:

“Consultants with an on-call liability shall have an entitlement to avail of rest days on the following basis:

• 1 : 1 on-call roster entitles the Consultant to 5 days in lieu per 4 week period;

• 1 : 2 on-call roster entitles the Consultant to 3 days in lieu per 4 week period;

• 1 : 3 on-call roster entitles the Consultant to 2 days in lieu per 4 week period;

• 1 : 4 on-call roster entitles the Consultant to 1 day in lieu per 4 week period.Rest days should be taken as soon as possible following the on-call liability to which they relate. Where service demands do not permit them to be taken immediately, rest days may be accumulated:

• for a maximum of six months from the earliest date of the on-call liability to which they relate and at that point they must be availed of or forfeited,

• • or

• for a maximum of three months from the earliest date of the on-call liability to which they relate. If it is not possible to avail of them at the end of the three-month period the Consultant may seek to be compensated for them at a rate equivalent to the daily rate for the type of post which (s)he occupies.”

The provisions of compensatory rest for consultant doctors on a 1:3 and 1:4 basis were altered by an agreement between the Respondent and the IMO in May 2014.

However, we believe that the Complainant’s on-call responsibility is most accurately characterised as a 1:1 on-call rota, as the only consultant providing on-call cover for his discipline at his place of employment.          

It is the contention of the Respondent that the Complainant was designated as not on-call from the implementation of the new protocol for ENT Emergencies in April 2014.

However, the Complainant was required to attend in emergencies, as if he were on-call, on numerous occasions: eight times in 2014, thirteen times in 2015, nine times in 2016, and twelve times in 2017. These call-outs are listed.

The timing of these call-outs are unpredictable and varied. They occurred at weekends, early in the morning, late in the evening, and at all times of the year. As a result, the Complainant was required to be constantly available to respond to these emergencies.

As is the case with all other consultants, there were times where the Complainant would avail of his annual leave entitlements, during which he would be unable to present personally to the emergency due to being outside of the country.

The Complainant expressed concern about these periods to the Respondents administration and requested that locum cover be provided, as is the case for other consultants on a 1:1 rota. However, none was provided during this time and the matter was not addressed.

As a result, the Complainant attempted to schedule his elective surgeries so that procedures with high-risk recoveries would not occur within two weeks of his unavailability.

Despite this planning, there were occasions where the Complainant would receive phone calls while on holiday abroad, and would provide telephone consultation to assist the attending physician with a patient that presented with an ENT emergency unrelated to the Complainant’s surgical practice.

The Complainant’s clinical responsibility to provide on-call cover and attend when called was affirmed by correspondence from the Medical Protection Society, the Complainant’s clinical indemnifier and advisor on clinical risk and responsibility.

A Medicolegal Advisor for the Medical Protection Society, indicated in an advice letter that:

“Whilst you may have no contractual responsibility to see a patient after they have been discharged from the hospital if you are not on-call, in the event that you were able to attend but refused to do so in an emergency situation then there is certainly the potential for criticism.

Bearing this in mind, you must consider whether the current arrangements with respect to performing tonsillectomy in your institution are acceptable. I would draw your attention to paragraph 65 of the Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for registered medical practitioners (8th edition, 2016).

Paragraph 65.1 states ‘If you are aware of systems or service structures that lead to unsafe practices which may put patients, you or other colleagues at risk, you must inform an appropriate person or authority. You should follow the guidance in paragraph 63.1 about raising concerns about safety in the environment in which you work.’

Paragraph 63.1 relates to patient safety and advocacy and states that if you are a doctor in a management role, you have a responsibility to advocate for appropriate healthcare resources and facilities if insufficient resources are affecting or may affect patient safety and quality of care. [Emphasis italicised in original]

The Complainant attempted throughout a period of three years to follow his clinical responsibility to inform appropriate persons or authorities of the insufficient resources provided as per Paragraph 63.1 of the Medical Council’s Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for registered medical practitioners (8th edition, 2016).

In response to these attempts, including intervention from the Irish Medical Organisation and the invocation of the Consultant Grievance Procedure, the Respondent management punished The Complainant with baseless attacks on his integrity and clinical performance.

A detailed summary of this period’s correspondence is listed in our original submission to you regarding this case in October 2016, a copy of which is attached to the email sending you this submission.

After a year and a half of delay and refusal to substantiate these claims, the Complainant received a letter of apology from the General Manager of the Respondent about the baseless claims of the letter.

Throughout this entire period, and also for the additional year after our first adjudication hearing, no assistance or alternative to providing de-facto on-call service was provided to the Complainant.

Theamount of compensatory rest claimed by the Complainant is consistent with his contract of employment.

His on-call responsibility is most accurately characterised as a 1:1 commitment as per the Contract.

Despite being informed by the Respondent management that he is not on-call, the circumstance in which he was placed, and subsequent attempts to avoid his concerns, forced him to provide on-call services.

We believe, therefore, that the Complainant is owed the amount quoted in our original submission in respect of unpaid compensatory rest.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The issue before the Adjudicator concerns a number of complaints lodged by the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) on behalf of the Complainant under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Adjudicator will be aware that a Hearing was held on the 21st October 2016 under the auspices of the WRC Adjudication Services and following engagement between the parties, the Adjudicator confirmed the Hearing as adjourned, to allow the parties to engage at a local level to discuss and resolve where possible the issues raised.

The local engagement between the Respondent and the Complainants Representative commenced with a meeting held on the 7th December 2016.

The Adjudicator will be aware that eight issues were identified by the IMO as part of the initial claim.

Further to a meeting between the Respondent and the IMO on the 7th December, 2016, the parties agreed that items 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were not appropriate to the industrial relations process as they relate to service provision and clinical matters. On the 10th March 2017, correspondence issued to the IMO setting out a response on all 8 issues identified.

With specific regard for the issues identified as clinical in nature, Hospital Management offered and has since met with the Complainant and the Clinical Director for the hospital on these issues.  Hospital Management and the Clinical Director for the hospital remain available to engage with The Complainant on any proposed changes to the current service configuration. 

Hospital Management is satisfied that the clinical issues are not appropriate to WRC Adjudication and as confirmed above, The Complainant as a Consultant has the ongoing option of engaging on any clinical issue directly with the Clinical Director for the Hospital and with Senior Hospital Management and Senior Management within the Respondents region.

Therefore, with regard for the remaining items, i.e. 2, 4 and 8, the position of Management on these issues has been advised to the IMO by way of correspondence dated 10th March 2017, 25th April 2017 and 27th April 2017, and these are not a matter for adjudication in this claim as the parties are engaged separately on the issues.

The IMO subsequently advised Management that one issue remains outstanding from the local discussions which commenced on the 7th December 2016 and that issue was referred by the IMO to the Adjudicator to investigate.

In email dated 18th August 2017, the IMO advised the employer that the issue in dispute is as follows:

‘My response to your email from 25 April 2017, sent on 28 April 2017, was intended to make clear the issue in dispute. To quote:

“It is our position that if the Complainant were entitled to C-Factor claims from January 2014 to present, he is also entitled to compensatory rest for this period. We believe the Complainant was de facto on-call on a 1:1 basis from January 2014 to present, even though the “official” position of the hospital group was that all ENT emergency out-of-hours requirements were handled by “another Hospital”. . The fact that the Complainant was called upon on several occasions to provide emergency services in this period shows that the position proposed in January 2014 was not fully agreed and implemented, and that The Complainant had a clinical responsibility to remain available to patients in this area.”

In short, the Complainant has been de facto on-call from January 2014 to the present, and as a result, he is due compensatory rest for this period on a 1:1 basis. This is the issue on which we will ask the Adjudicator to make a judgement.’

The IMO in their submission to the Adjudication at Hearing held on the 8th of December 2017, identified their claim on behalf of the Complainant as follows:-

Claim for compensatory rest from April 2014 to date i.e. five days compensatory rest for every four-week period on 1:1 roster.

Claim for B factor payments i.e. payment for being on-call to reflect a 1:1 roster.

Claim for C factor payments i.e. payment for call-outs.

The IMO have stated to the Adjudicator that the claim totals €151,255.26 as at December 2017.

The above claims are strongly refuted by the Employer.

The Respondent as the identified employer is confirming to the Adjudicator that the terms and conditions of employment as comprehended within the Complainant’s contract of employment and all relevant national agreements applicable to the post of Consultant , are being afforded to the Complainant in full.

The Complainant is in receipt of a written contract of employment which clarifies the terms and conditions of employment applicable to him in the post of Consultant ENT Surgeon.

The Complainant’s current contract of employment is effective from the 1st June 2008 and The Complainant’s tenure is that of permanent employee.

A full copy of the contract of employment between the Respondent and the Complainant was provided.

Item 7 (pages 8 & 9 of contract) of The Complainant’s written contract of employment clarifies his weekly working commitment i.e. 37 hours per week. This has been increased to 39 hours per week in line with the nationally agreed Public Service Stability Agreement (Haddington Road Agreement) with effect from 1st July 2013.

With the introduction of the 2008 Consultant Contract, a verification process was conducted in 2009 clarifying the weekly roster and out of hours requirement and work schedule relating to Out Patients Departments, Ward Rounds and Theatre Days.

Item 7(c) of The Complainant’s contract of employment clarifies the arrangements should the Complainant be required to participate in an on-call roster. Specifically Item 7 (c) confirms the following:

‘In addition to the contracted commitment per week specified as Section 7 (a) above:

1. the Consultant may be required to participate in the on-call roster as determined by the Clinical Director/Employer. Payment arrangements for on-call liability are set out at Section 23(i) and for the provision of call-out services when on-call outside scheduled commitments at Section 23 (j).
2. the Consultant rostered on-call may be required to provide a structured commitment on-site of up to 5 hours on a Saturday and/or 5 hours overtime on a Sunday and/or 5 hours on a public holiday. Consultants on onerous on-call rosters* shall not be expected to deliver the upper end of this requirement as determined by the Clinical Director. The Consultant’s liability for on-call outside such structured or other scheduled overtime hours will continue to apply.

*Only on-call rosters 1:4, 1:3, 1:2 or 1:1 are regarded as onerous.

Item 23 (j) (pages 24 – 26 of the contract)of the aforementioned contract for the Complainant clarifies C factor (call-out) payments in circumstances where on-site services are provided by the Consultant such as a Consultant rostered for on-call duty who is contacted by another medical practitioner in the hospital, by a senior nurse or other member of staff specifically designated for that purpose and attends on-site to provide emergency services or a Consultant rostered for on-call duty and who, in the exercise of his or her professional judgement, attends on-site and performs clinical work of an urgent nature or carries out urgent diagnostic or therapeutic procedures or where a Consultant is requested by another Consultant to provide on-site services in public hospital/agency to which the Consultant does not have a scheduled commitment and where such services cannot be provided within the Consultant’s scheduled commitment as adjusted by the Clinical Director/Employer. This payment shall be on the basis of the equivalent payment for call-out.

It is noted that consistent with item 23 (j) of the Contract of Employment signed and accepted by The Complainant, the Clinical Director has confirmed that having regard for service needs that The Complainant is required to provide an on-call service as outlined in correspondence from the Respondent Hospital Management dated 6th February 2014. It is the position of Management that consistent with this ring-fenced arrangement implemented locally with the Complainant, his potential off-site on-call equates to 32 hours per week (i.e. 5pm to 9am Monday to Tuesday, 5pm to 9am Wednesday to Thursday – after Theatre lists).  

The above off-site on-call required of the Complainant is equivalent to a 1:5 on-call rota and not comparable to a 1:1 rota as claimed by the IMO.

The Department of Health Consolidated Salary Scales (1.1.2018) details the rates to be paid in respect of B factor and C Factor payments for all Consultants where applicable.

Since 2014 Hospital Management confirmed the following as out of hours worked by The Complainant and are reflective of the submissions made by the Complainant to Hospital Management.

A table was provided confirming the amount of C factor (out of hours payment) made to The Complainant for those hours as submitted by him.

The following were B Factor payments (On-Call) made to the Complainant for the period 2014 to 2017.

2014 10,550 Euros

2015 10,550 Euros

2016 10,550 Euros

2017 10,550 Euros

The above B Factor payment is in excess of the B Factor payment applicable to the 1:5 rota required to be worked by the Complainant. Hospital Management have advised that the overpayment is a genuine error and arrangements will be made locally to address the overpayment in line with the Respondent National Financial Regulations.

Management has provided extracts from the Respondent Payroll History relating to all payments made by the Respondent to the Complainant from 2014 to 2017.

Section 18 (j) of The Complainant’s signed and accepted contract of employment clarifies the arrangements regarding Rest Days. It is noted that Rest Days are not applicable for an On-call roster other than a 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 and 1:4. Therefore, the 1:5 On-call requirement of The Complainant does not attract Rest Days.

The terms of the Complainant’s contract of employment have been revised by way of national agreement and with specific regard for Rest Days, a Recommendation issued by the Labour Court concerning a claim lodged by the IMO relating to proposed changes to historic Rest days, Rest day entitlements and delivery of Second Opinions as required under the Mental Health Act 2001.

The Court in LCR20403, which issued on the 6th November 2012, recommended that compensatory rest for this group of workers be brought into line with the standard arrangements in place for other professional grades in the public health services. This would involve the replacement of the current work arrangements whereby compensatory rest is allowed at a fixed rate dependent on the ‘on-call’ roster one works with an arrangement in which compensatory rest is allowed after an actual ‘call-out’ incident. The Court made reference to both parties having informed the Court that the 1:1 and 1:2 rosters that are in place in the health services are undesirable and ought to be eliminated as part of the current restructuring and reconfiguration discussions. The Court recommended that the current Rest day arrangement continue to apply to Consultants working those rosters until they are eliminated through the restructuring discussions currently taking place. The Court confirmed that as staff transfer to less onerous on-call rosters they should simultaneously transfer to the standard the Respondent compensatory rest arrangements.

The current arrangements relating to the implementation of the afore mentioned LCR 20403 as agreed between the Respondent and the IMO nationally are as follows:

With effect from the 5th May 2014, the Rest Day provisions to apply to Consultants on 1:3 or 1:4 rotas are: -

rest to differ depending on when the on-call incident occurred – before or after midnight or on a weekday or weekend – and the amount of time spent providing the service;

rest to differ when a telephone consultation is utilised and the Consultant is not required to attend on-site;

recognition for the impact that onerous rotas have on personal and family life. In recognition of this, a minimum number of rest days associated with the rotas;

total compensatory rest due to the Consultant calculated at the end of each calendar month and taken by the end of the following month or at the latest, within 8 weeks. Where it was not possible to take the rest in that period, payment in lieu of same.

As advised to the Adjudicator, a ring-fenced arrangement was agreed between the then Hospital Management Team and the Complainant at the time of the reconfiguration, whereby in the event that a patient having undergone an elective procedure on Monday or Wednesday (i.e. The Complainant’s theatre days) who required an overnight stay, this would be the only occasion requiring The Complainant to be on call.  Such a potential off-site on-call arrangement would equate to a 1:5 commitment and therefore, consistent with The Complainant’s contract of employment, he would not attract an entitlement to Rest days.

The IMO in their presentation to the Adjudicator and in their correspondence with Management have advised that they are seeking compensation to be provided to the Complainant for the loss of Rest days and on-call earnings resulting from the implementation of the reconfiguration programme implemented in 2013/2014 in respect of the Complainants filed of work at the Respondent.

It is the position of Management that the terms of the contract of employment entered into between the Respondent and The Complainant do not provide for an entitlement to such on-call earnings or Rest days but rather provide an entitlement to payment and compensatory rest when such on-call and out-of hours service are undertaken by the Complainant and in line with the nature of the on-call requirement.

It is important to highlight to the Adjudicator that such a claim, as being pursued by the IMO, is contrary to the claims before the WRC Adjudications Services as it has the potential to impact Consultants employed across the Respondent and such claims are precluded under Section 13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Any Consultant’s on-call requirement could change from time to time and the suggestion that Consultants have an entitlement to a certain on-call liability, and therefore expected remuneration for same and compensation for its loss, is not one the Respondent can agree with. Therefore, the matter is not appropriate to the Adjudication Services and Management are respectfully requesting the Adjudicator to recommend that such a matter be pursued by the IMO through the appropriate disputes resolution framework as provided for within the Public Service Stability Agreements, to which the IMO are a party. Furthermore, such a claim is cost increasing and is precluded under Section 4.2.1. of the current Public Service Stability Agreement (Lansdowne Road).

The IMO in their submission to the WRC Adjudicator on the 8th December 2017 refer to LCR 21624 – Mercy University Hospital – and – A Doctor (represented by IMO), which issued to the parties of that claim on the 30th November 2017. The IMO in the case of the Complainant refer to LCR21624 as the Court affirmed that contractual obligations regarding compensatory rest must be honoured. In response, the Respondent is satisfied that the Complainant is being compensated in respect of all out of hours worked by him which equate to a 1:5 rota. The Respondent is satisfied that the circumstances arising in LCR 21624 are separate and not comparable to the claim lodged by the IMO on behalf of the Complainant, as in that instance, the Court were satisfied that the matter related to the IMO’s claim for application of the national agreement relating to compensatory rest and whether or not such a matter was appropriate to the WRC Adjudication Services, in the first instance.

As previously advised to the Adjudicator in Management’s submission dated 21st October 2016, Management engaged with The Complainant in 2013 in the context of a regional reconfiguration of Acute services across the region as it related to the services in the Hospital.

In September 2013, a Services Regional Implementation Group was established to oversee the reconfiguration of services in the region.

In addition to the local ring-fenced arrangement requiring the Complainant to provide an on-call rota equivalent to a 1:5 rota, a revised Policy and Procedure for the management of Emergencies was developed and approved for implementation by Hospital Management, Clinical Director, Clinical Governance Committee and took effect from the 4th January 2016. The Adjudicator’s attention is drawn to the list of reviewers in the above mentioned Policy and Procedure which includes the Respondent.

Hospital Management confirms their ongoing availability to engage with The Complainant on any clinical concerns he wishes to discuss. This is the case for all staff, including Consultants, working in the hospital.

The claims lodged by the IMO on behalf of The Complainant to the WRC Adjudication Services have been submitted under the Industrial Relations Acts. The claims are summarised as follows

Claim for compensatory rest from April 2014 to date i.e. five days compensatory rest for every four-week period on 1:1 roster.

Claim for B factor payments i.e. payment for being on-call to reflect a 1:1 roster.

Claim for C factor payments i.e. payment for call-outs.

The IMO have stated to the Adjudicator that the claim totals €151,255.26 as at December 2017.

The Respondent strongly refutes the above claims.

Management has implemented an agreed ‘ring-fenced’ arrangement with the Complainant regarding potential out-of-hours commitment to reflect his theatre days which equates to a 1:5 on call requirement.

The Respondent as the employer does not require the Complainant to work a 1:1 roster. Following a reconfiguration of Services at the Respondent in 2014 and following an engagement locally between Hospital Management, the Clinical Director, Hospital Consultants from the Respondent and another Hospital, a specific on-call arrangement was identified for the Complainant which would equate to a 1:5 commitment and therefore, consistent with the Complainant’s contract of employment, the claims as submitted by the IMO on behalf of the Complainant are inappropriate and outside the terms of his contract of employment and required out of hours service.

The Complainant is being afforded all aspects of his contract of employment to include payment for out-of-hours working where applicable.

It is the position of Management that the local engagement which has taken place since the 7th of December 2016 has successfully addressed all clinical concerns raised by the Complainant and Hospital Management, to include the Clinical Director, remains available to engage with the Complainant going forward.

The employer is confirming to the Adjudicator that the concerns of all relevant Clinicians, Nurse Management and Senior Service Management have been discussed and reviewed in a transparent and inclusive manner as it relates to the reconfiguration of services in the region. Management is satisfied that the Complainant has been fully engaged with by Hospital Management in advance of the introduction of the reconfiguration programme relating to Services.

Management is respectfully advising that the claim for compensation as lodged by the IMO on behalf of The Complainant is without foundation having regard for the written terms of employment comprehended within the Complainant’s contract of employment which confirm that the Complainant will be advised by Hospital Management, to include the Clinical Director, as to whether or not he is required to work an on-call rota. The national agreements in place clarify the payment rates where such on-call rotas arise.

Any claim for changes to on-call rotas are not appropriate to the WRC Adjudication Services having regard for the potential collective nature of the claim. It is noted that the IMO have been pursuing a national claim on behalf of its members, to include the Complainant, for a reduction of onerous on-call rotas such as 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 and 1:4. Reference is made to the 2014 national agreement and LCR on this matter in 2.2.9 above.

Accordingly, the Respondent is respectfully requesting the Adjudicator to uphold Management’s position.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

Dated:              25 May 2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien

Key Words: