FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Payment of a subsistence rate while working overtime at another base.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to the payment of subsistence payments to Paramedics, Advanced Paramedics and Intermediate Care Operatives when working overtime in another location.
The Union said that a subsistence payment has been unilaterally removed in situations where staff carry out overtime in a location other than their normal place of work.
The Employer said that overtime is operated on a discretionary basis; it is voluntary, and the offered location is their base for that day.
- 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 the 19thDecember 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 30thJanuary 2019.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union said the payment of subsistence was ceased unilaterally without any consultation.
2. When working at another location, staff must collect and return their equipment from the normal place of work.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
- 1. The Employer said that overtime is operated on a discretionary basis.
2. While working from the new base for the day, staff may receive subsistence in accordance with normal rules where they are deployed from their base for the day to another location.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by SIPTU on behalf of Paramedics, Advanced Paramedics and Intermediate Care Operatives concerning the payment of subsistence payments when working overtime in another location. The dispute relates to staff in the East Region, a sub region of the North Leinster operational area, one of its three national operational areas.
The Union claimed that a subsistence payment had been unilaterally removed in situations where staff carry out overtime in a location other than their normal place of work. It submitted that for a substantial period of time staff who work away from their normal rostered bases have received subsistence payments in line with national financial regulations on travel and subsistence. The Union stated that when staff attend another location to work overtime, they must collect and return their equipment to the normal place of work.
The Union stated that the HSE National Ambulance Service (NAS) ceased this payment in January 2018, without consultation and without giving notice.
It referred to Section 5.7.2. of the Regulations which indicated that staff assigned to field duties will be paid subsistence expenses. Whereas Section 5.10.0. stated that the “normal place of work is the place the employee normally performs the duties”.
Management stated that overtime is operated on a discretionary basis, it is offered to staff in the three NAS Operational Areas and sub regions, on a fair distribution basis. It is voluntary, and the offered location is their base for that day. Management stated that following an internal audit for the North Leinster Operational Area, improved payroll management examined a number of areas of concern regarding payroll administration and discovered that subsistence payments were erroneously processed incorrectly when staff were working overtime from a base which was not their normal base. It submitted that this was contrary to the rules governing the payment of subsistence allowance as laid down in the“HSE National Financial Regulation Travel and Subsistence NFR-05”(herein after referred to as the Regulations). In particular it referred to Clause 5.11.10
- “Daily travel between normal headquarters and temporary centre;
the ordinary rate of day allowance is not applicable to temporarily transferred officers who are able to travel between their home and the office to which they are temporarily attached. Or in other cases of repeated daily visits to the sample place, in such cases, the payment of a day subsistence allowance will depend upon whether the officer is in fact put to substantial extra expense for meals in consequence of his absence from his normal headquarters. In each case where an allowance is justified, a special rate is fixed.”
The Court has considered the submissions of both parties. The Court was provided with a memo from management regardingNFR-05 Travel and Subsistencewhich has been shared with staff representatives at the National Joint Council. Management stated that it intends to seek to have the overall/general issue of working in various locations addressed at this forum. The purpose of the memo is to provide clarification on the interpretation of the appropriate approval of subsistence claims under NFR-05. It states that clarification is necessary as there appears to be an inconsistency in current interpretation. The Union expressed concern about this process as it stated that no meetings have taken place to discuss the memo, and it was of the view that the National Joint Council was not designed to deal with local nuances or arrangements.
The Court is of the view that as the issue involves an interpretation of national regulations, then the National Joint Council, which comprises of both management and trade union representatives is the appropriate mechanism to consider this issue in dispute and accordingly recommends that the issue between the parties should be examined as a matter of priority by the National Joint Council.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
13th March, 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.