ADJ-00013644

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Paramedic

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

SIPTU

The Respondent attended in person

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00017819-001

08/03/2018

The Worker is employed by the Employer as a Paramedic having been appointed to this role in 2010. This dispute concerns a claim by the Worker to have previous service in another role within the organisation recognised for incremental credit on his appointment to the Emergency Medical Technician grade (EMT). The Worker contends that he should have been placed at a higher point on the EMT payscale on the basis of his previous experience. The Employer contends that the Worker’s previous experience as a Hospital Attendant was not reckonable for incremental credit on the EMT payscale.

The Worker was employed by the Employer as a Hospital Attendant for 7 years in the Emergency Department of a hospital. In 2008, the Worker went to college and trained as a paramedic, as it was the natural progression from him being an attendant in the Emergency Department to Paramedic. Many of his duties were similar to the paramedic one. The Worker was appointed as a Paramedic in September, 2010.

At the time the Worker was on point 6 of the payscale for the Hospital Attendant grade. On the date of his appointment to the role of Paramedic the Worker was placed on point 1 of the payscale for that grade and his previous experience and service as a Hospital Attendant was not taken into account.

The Worker raised a grievance under the Employer’s internal grievance procedures in relation to this matter but his grievance was not upheld. The Worker contends that he was extremely frustrated by the significant delays by the Employer in dealing with his grievance through the internal procedures. The Employer held that incremental credit for paramedics could only be applied for previously recognised service, which is strictly limited to previous relevant service in a paramedic role and accordingly, no incremental credit can be applied for other grades i.e. support or clerical.

The Worker made the following arguments in support of his position in relation to this dispute:

·         In accordance with Section 5 of the Employer’s Guidelines on Terms and Conditions of Employment (issued in May 2009), an employee is entitled to incremental credit for his/her previous relevant service. Section 5 states that: “Incremental credit is normally granted on appointment, in respect of previous experience in the Civil Service, local authorities, health service and other public service bodies and statutory agencies. The provision is not affected by a break in service”.

·         The Worker, while being employed as a Hospital Attendant, performed many duties which were similar to the Paramedic one. He brought vast experience into his new position as a Paramedic.

·         The move from Hospital Attendant in the Emergency Department to a paramedic role could be perceived as promotion, as many duties were very similar to the paramedic role. If that’s the case Circular 10/71 should apply. Furthermore, the Worker continued to work for the same Employer after changing roles. His contract as a Hospital Attendant was not terminated as he was transferred to a different department in his new role as a Paramedic.

·         In the past there were Paramedics who were given incremental credit for previous experience as Hospital Attendant’s or Porters. The relevant experience was taken into account and credit was granted.

The Employer made the following arguments in support of its position in relation to this dispute:

·         The Worker’s claim is an attempt to dislodge an established collective issue which is well established and the Labour Court has made a significant number of determinations on. Any wider issue of transferability of salary upon changing grades or work streams would be a collective issue requiring national discussion at the National Joint Council. Any such claim has wider collective focus and if conceded would result in an unknown quantity of claims, grievances and third-party referrals to the WRC, which the Employer cannot afford.

·         The Worker’s claim is without merit. The Paramedic/EMT is a new entry level grade and all applicants are required to complete a two year training course after applying through open competition, including those coming from differing posts in the health sector.

·         Incremental credit for Paramedics can only be applied for previous recognised service, which is strictly limited to previous relevant service in a Paramedic role and accordingly, no incremental credit can be applied for other grades e.g. support or clerical. Following completion of the internal stages of the Employer’s grievance procedures, whereby decisions set out by management as part of the grievance procedure, clearly show that the claims is without merit. The decisions at both Stages 1 and 2 of the procedure made it clear in what circumstances incremental credit can apply.

·         The claim is unsupported by case precedence, whereby in similar cases and in particular AD06101, the Labour Court has made it clear that incremental credit is only for Paramedic service, such that the Employer relies on this recommendation. The Employer also referred to the determinations of the Labour Court in the following disputes, namely AD0749, LCR20717, AD1579 and AD1588 in support of its position.

·         As the claim would destabilise the clear national position of the Employer’s terms and conditions, it is therefore a cost increasing claim and is precluded under the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010, particularly at point 1.27 which states: “no cost increasing claims by trade unions or employees for improvements in pay or conditions of employment will be made or processed during the currency of the Agreement”.

·         The Employer cannot cope with the concession of such a claim where it would have consequential precedential knock on for associated staff and result in a high level of retrospective claims, grievances and also third-party referrals from parties with a similar argument.

The core issue in dispute between the parties relates to the question as to whether or not the Worker was entitled to have his previous service as a Hospital Attendant recognised for the purpose of incremental credit on his appointment as a Paramedic within the EMT grade.

Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties, I accept the Employer’s position that the established and nationally agreed rules surrounding incremental credit for Paramedics can only be applied for recognised service, which is strictly limited to previous experience in a Paramedic role. I concur with the Employer’s assessment that the Worker’s previous experience as a Hospital Attendant does not qualify as recognised service for the purpose of incremental credit on the EMT payscale following his appointment as a Paramedic.

Accordingly, I find that that the Worker was placed on the correct point of the EMT payscale on his appointment to the role of Paramedic and that he was not entitled to incremental credit for his previous experience as a Hospital Attendant.

I have also taken cognisance of the Labour Court Recommendation in the case of HSE National Ambulance Service -v- SIPTU[1] where it was held that “The Court is satisfied the grade of EMT became an entry level grade as part of the Benchmarking exercise while in any event this claim may have been initiated before the Public Sector Agreement 2010-2014, the Court must have regard to the terms of Clause 1.27 of that Agreement which precludes trade unions from making or processing cost-increasing claims during the currency of the Agreement. As the claim before the Court involves the processing of a cost increasing claim, the Court cannot recommend concession of the Union’s claim.” I am satisfied that the findings of the Labour Court are also equally applicable to facts of the present case, and I accept that the Worker’s claim, if conceded, would amount to a cost increasing claim.

Having regard to the foregoing, I find that I cannot recommend that the Employer concedes to the Worker’s claim in this dispute.

I find that I cannot recommend that the Employer concedes to the Worker’s claim. Accordingly, I recommend that the Worker accepts the outcome of the internal grievance process in relation to this dispute.

Industrial Relations Act 1969 – Section 13 – Trade Dispute – Incremental credit