FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Non-Payment of Shift Pay to Certain Former Navan Control Centre Staff
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 19 December 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21 February 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The staff were not given the same opportunity to maintain their shift pay as other former controllers moving to the ICV service.
2. The Union submits that the working hours of the claimants should be changed in order that the roles they currently occupy would meet the agreed criteria for payment of shift pay.
3. The Union asserts that no option was available to the claimants within a 45 kilometre radius of Navan at the time of their re-employment which would attract shift pay.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. Payment of premia must be in accordance with HSE National Financial Regulations and Terms of Conditions.
2. The service does not require an attendance pattern which would involve payment and shift pay.
3. The employer asserts that none of the claimants took up an option which would have involved the continued payment of shift pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court relates to the payment of shift pay to four former Navan based ambulance controllers who, following a process which concluded in 2014, re-deployed from their roles in Navan upon closure of the Centre there. The four claimants, who worked a roster attracting shift pay in Navan, redeployed voluntarily from their role in Navan to roles not attracting shift pay following agreement between the Union and the Employer as regards arrangements to apply upon closure. The terms for payment of shift pay are set out in a 1978 agreement.
The employer asserts that options to take up roles upon closure which did attract shift pay did exist for the four claimants at the time of their re-deployment. The employer asserted to the Court that such options existed both within and without a 45 kilometre radius of Navan. The employer asserted that none of the claimants took up an option which would have involved the continued payment of shift pay.
The Union asserted that no option was available to the claimants within a 45 kilometre radius of Navan at the time of their re-deployment which would have attracted shift pay.
It is common case that the re-deployment of the claimants took place by agreement between the parties. It is also common case that the claimants were compensated for loss of shift pay in accordance with relevant agreements in place at the time.
The Union submits that the working hours of the claimants should be changed in order that the roles they currently occupy would meet the agreed criteria for payment of shift pay. The employer asserts that no change to working hours is required or warranted for service reasons.
The Union supports its claim by referencing two agreement in place between the Union and the employer covering specific staff in Galway and Limerick.
The Court notes that the agreement between the Union and the employer in Galway contains the following clause:
- “This agreement is accepted by both parties to be a red circled agreement. This proposed agreement is offered and will be implemented with the clear agreement that it is without prejudice and will not be viewed or used as a precedent in future engagements and will not be referred to or quoted by staff in relation to any other subsequent agreements / engagements that may be determined in the future”
- “This proposal is only on a one off basis and without precedent and not to be quoted in any future industrial relations forums as a precedent by either party.”
In all of the circumstances therefore the Court recommends against concession of the Union claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
MK______________________
26 February 2019Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.