LCR21836

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/18/281

RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR21836

CCc-163210-18

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

ST PATRICK'S CENTRE LTD

- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Geraghty
Employer Member: Mr Marie
Worker Member: Mr Hall

SUBJECT:
1. Grading, redeployment, voluntary severance and restructuring.

BACKGROUND:

2. St. Patrick’s Centre is a Section 38 health care facility. As part of a national strategy, it is proposed to disperse residents to other locations. Extensive negotiation took place regarding the future roles of all staff. This dispute concerns a relatively small number of the overall staff complement who provide centralised services such as driving, laundry, domestic and kitchen services and whose work will be dissipated while the Centre’s role is being decommissioned. The parties’ engagement could not resolve satisfactorily the question of the future of all the staff concerned. The position of the funder, the HSE, was that all such staff who cannot be retained or cannot retire should retrain as Health Care Assistants, (HCA). According to the employer, the HSE is not willing to sanction redeployment and/or voluntary severance. While a small number of staff can be retained on maintenance and cleaning work and some more have sought to be re-trained as HCAs and one person is close to retirement, the remaining staff wish either to be redeployed or to be offered voluntary severance. The matter was the subject of conciliation at the WRC but agreement could not be reached.

Union Position

1. The employer is a Section 38 body funded fully by the HSE. The staff are covered by the ‘no compulsory redundancy’ clauses in the various Public Service Agreements.
2. In the absence of agreement on redeployment, the only options for the staff are re-training and/or redundancy. Only 3 staff opted for the former, so, unless redeployment is available, the only option for the staff affected is redundancy.
3. Despite this, management advised the union that no funding is available for redundancy and that re-training is the only available option. This would involve staff, who have no desire to do so, taking on personal care roles for residents with challenging behaviour and severe disabilities. It is unacceptable to force staff into this situation and then expect that they carry out their new role in an empathetic and caring manner and it is a potentially unsafe course.

Employer Position

1 The employer has worked hard with all unions involved to resolve the difficulties for staff arising from the changes.
However, the HSE is unwilling to facilitate redeployment
2 The cost of redundancies is in the range of €934,630 to €1,240,000 depending on the number of applicants. The service cannot meet this cost in the absence of funding and authorisation from the HSE.
3 The employer was willing to consider early retirement as an option. Only one person availed of it.
4 The HSE expressed a desire to re-train all impacted staff to perform HCA roles. The employer is willing to accommodate this re-training and will facilitate such re-training taking place over a period of years, at a cost in excess of €1.5m.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is not in dispute that the staff affected are covered by the terms of the various Public Service Agreements on pay, including the guarantees against compulsory redundancies. Therefore, it is incumbent on all parties to utilise all available mechanisms to avoid compulsory redundancies. No viable option can be, or should be, ruled out, including potential re-deployment and voluntary severance on Public Service terms.

It is clear from the information provided to the Court that there is funding available to deal with the implications for staff arising from the restructuring of St. Patrick’s but the funder has directed how that funding should be dispensed. The Court was advised further that the potential cost of re-training the people concerned, as per the funder’s preferences, exceeds the potential cost of voluntary severance.

In circumstances where some staff at an advanced stage in their careers have, quite understandably, no wish to re-train to what would be, in effect, a career change from support service roles to important roles in front-line direct care provision for vulnerable people, there is no logical reason to rule out any option, including voluntary severance, that could avoid compulsory redundancies and, thereby, protect the rights of the workers concerned under the current agreed arrangements. The Court recommends that both parties should co-operate in making a joint approach to the HSE as the funder of the service to resolve this dispute finally, in accordance with all options contained within the Public Service Agreements and in line with the terms of this Recommendation.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Tom Geraghty
LS______________________
27 November 2018Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.

LCR21836

2. In the absence of agreement on redeployment, the only options for the staff are re-training and/or redundancy. Only 3 staff opted for the former, so, unless redeployment is available, the only option for the staff affected is redundancy.

However, the HSE is unwilling to facilitate redeployment

2 The cost of redundancies is in the range of €934,630 to €1,240,000 depending on the number of applicants. The service cannot meet this cost in the absence of funding and authorisation from the HSE.

3 The employer was willing to consider early retirement as an option. Only one person availed of it.

4 The HSE expressed a desire to re-train all impacted staff to perform HCA roles. The employer is willing to accommodate this re-training and will facilitate such re-training taking place over a period of years, at a cost in excess of €1.5m.