LCR21940

The issue was referred to the Labour court under section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and in accordance with the Public Sector Agreement, for a ‘binding outcome’.

It is the Employer’s position that following the decision at national level to separate Acute Hospitals and Community care areas it makes operational sense for the maintenance to be provided from within the community care area that the district hospitals and community nursing unit fall under. This allows the staff attached to the Mayo University Hospital to be completely focused on site and provides a clear management line and governance structure for both the CHO and the Acute Hospital. It is the Employer’s position that the proposal does not change the on-call arrangements and that there will be no impact on earnings. It is the Employer’s position that they initially advised the Union of the proposal in July 2018 and that the decision to go ahead with the proposal was made by management in August 2018 with an implementation date of 1^stSeptember 2018. A meeting in relation to the issue took place on the 2^ndOctober 2018 but no progress was made so the issue was referred to the WRC conciliation services. Unfortunately, no resolution could be found. It is the Employer’s position that this proposal allows for the delivery of a safer, better governed and more efficient maintenance service to all sites. The only loss to staff that may possibly arise will be in relation to possible loss of overtime arising from dealing with the district hospitals. It is the Employer’s position that where any such loss is identified it will be compensated for in line with the PSA.

It is the Union’s position that they were presented with a ‘done deal’ at the meeting in July 2018 when they were informed at the end of the meeting that with effect from the 1^stof September 2018 there would be changes to the existing maintenance structures. This was the first the Unions had heard of such proposals and when they queried why they had not been involved in discussions they were told “I’m informing you now”. Following the meeting the Unions wrote to the Chief Officer requesting that the Employer engage with the Unions on the proposal. On the 6^thof September 2018 the Unions were notified by their members that the Employer had moved ahead with its proposal. The Unions responded by advising the Employer that they were conducting a ballot for industrial action and again requesting that management engage with the Unions in relation to their proposals. The Union ballot for industrial action was passed by 100 % in favour of taking industrial action on this issue. Management were notified of the outcome and a meeting was held on the 2^ndOctober 2018, but no resolution was possible. The issue was then referred to the WRC for conciliation. It is the Unions position that the system currently in place works well and provides a good service to all user. Work is prioritised in a manner which ensures each site receives the necessary attention. The Union have put forward what they believe to be workable solutions, but they were rejected by the HSE.

The irony of the HSE seeking to rely on the Public Service Agreement to bring in the changes they want to make in circumstances where they have failed to follow any of the procedures for engaging with staff affected by the change is not lost on the Court. The procedures are clear that real engagement is required in advance of making the decision and not as happened in this case after the decision has been made.

While the Court is reluctant to allow the HSE benefit from its failure to comply with the Public Sector Agreement, there has been engagement since October 2018 under the auspices of the WRC. The proposed change is a transfer of duties and falls within the parameters of the Public Service Agreement, no identifiable loss has been raised at this stage. However, management have confirmed that should such a loss arise it will be compensated in line with the Public Service Agreement.

In all of the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the transfer of maintenance duties to the Community Health Office should take place once the additional four staff identified by management as being required are in place.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Louise O'Donnell
2 April 2019______________________
MNDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.