FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST JOHN OF GOD HOSPITAL, STILLORGAN (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - FORSA PNA SIPTU DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Non-application of HSE Storm Emma Circular
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Unions in relation to the application of the HSE Circular governing leave arrangements during the adverse weather conditions of Storm Emma in February and March 2018. The Unions on behalf of their members are seeking the application of the HSE Circular in respect of those employees whose hours of work were affected by the weather conditions during the storm. The Employer rejects the Unions' claim, arguing that it is a private employer and is therefore not bound by circulars issued by the HSE.
The 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 the 13th March, 2019, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th June, 2019.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute between the parties arises from the Unions' claim to have HSE circular 017/2018 applied to the Workers in St John of God Hospital. The Employer’s position is that they are a private hospital and not covered by HSE circulars.
The Unions submitted to the Court that HSE circular 017/2018 in relation to leave and recognition arising from the effects of storm Emma and Storm Ophelia should be applied to the staff in St John of God Hospital Stillorgan. It was their submission that these staff are aligned to public service through general terms and conditions and therefore this circular should equally apply to them. It was the Unions' submission that St John of God are part of the Health Sector NJC and therefore are bound to implement the circular. They also drew the Court's attention to the fact that other staff on the same site as the hospital employed by St John of God received the benefit of the circular and that it was unfair to single out one specific cohort of staff particularly in circumstances where the staff are interchangeable.
The Employer submitted to the Court that the Unions' claim is based on a misconception that St John of God Hospital is a HSE hospital or a Section 38 funded hospital. While the hospital is part of the St John of God Group they are all independent operations. The hospital is a private hospital and the only funding it receives is a small amount of Section 39 funding for carrying out specific functions.
The Hospital advised the Unions of this last June however, the Unions still seem to be under the impression that the Hospital is part of the NJC which it clearly is not. The Hospital acknowledges the dedication and loyalty of staff during that difficult period and has tabled its own proposals to address the issue. The Hospital does not dispute that its staff are paid the consolidated rates of pay and that the main terms and conditions of its staff tend to follow that of the HSE but was adamant that they are not interchangeable with other St John of God staff. It is the Employer’s position that they are not covered by HSE circulars and are not obliged to implement them.
The Court notes that in the course of the hearing the Unions accepted the clarification that the Hospital was a private Hospital. The Court notes the proposal made by the Employer as set out on page 4 of their submission. The Court recommends that bullet points one and two of that proposal be amended to reflect the fact that the weather event lasted for three days 28thFebruary, 1stMarch and 2ndMarch 2018. The proposal as amended is to be in full and final settlement of the Unions' claim.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
12th July 2019______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.