FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Removal of Interim Payments. 2. The Union request the Employer provide the option of fortnightly pay in an agreed time-frame for all staff concerned who suffer financial hardship. 3. The Union argues that a clear criteria must be set out by the Employer in respect of applications made by members for fortnightly pay.
4. 1. The Employer states it remains committed to look at individual requests from individuals suffering from financial hardship. 2. The Employer is committed to a separate longer term payroll project which may result in the introduction of fortnightly pay but this will take some years to advance to implementation. 3. The Employer submits that it will take a a fair and consistent approach to all applications from staff suffering financial hardship.
The workers involved in this trade dispute are, in line with their contract of employment, paid on a monthly pay cycle. For many years an arrangement had applied in the two CHO areas before the Court and three other CHO areas whereby staff were able to avail of a system of interim payments in the middle of the monthly pay cycle. This resulted in the workers being paid monthly but also being able to receive a partial ‘advance’ on their pay two weeks into the pay cycle. For reasons outside the control of either party, the system of ‘interim payments’ was required to cease, and this ultimately happened in September 2021. The Trade Unions claim that the cessation of the system of ‘interim payments’ resulted in financial hardship for a number of members and that such hardship could be alleviated by moving those staff to a fortnightly pay cycle. The employer responded to this claim by agreeing that persons in genuine financial hardship as a result of the cessation of the ‘interim payment’ system could be accommodated with a move to a fortnightly cycle provided the numbers involved were small. The employer submitted that, whereas an organisation-wide project to bring a fortnightly pay cycle into operation is under way, such a re-structuring of payroll arrangements is complex and challenging. Implementation of such a change is not expected for a number of years. The employer confirmed however that, notwithstanding the administrative challenges attaching thereto, it could make arrangements to move a small number of staff who might be experiencing genuine financial hardship as a result of the cessation of the system of ‘interim payments’, to a fortnightly payroll. Such a facility would not be administratively possible or affordable were the number of persons involved to be significant. The employer did advise all 3,000 approx. staff affected by the cessation of the ‘interim payment’ system of its willingness to address genuine financial hardship arising from the cessation. The employer invited any such staff to make their circumstances confidentially known to the Head of HR in each CHO area who would decide whether a move to fortnightly payroll should be accommodated. Only 103 persons applied to be moved to fortnightly payroll for that reason. Of the 103 applications received, the Heads of HR concluded that 13 were cases of genuine financial hardship while 90 were cases of persons dissatisfied with the cessation of the system of ‘interim payments’. It is clear that there is no dispute between the parties as regards the proposition that, notwithstanding the fact that their contracted pay cycle is monthly, staff who experience genuine financial hardship because of the cessation of ‘interim payments’ should, if possible, be accommodated with a move to fortnightly payroll. The Trade Unions submitted that the number of such persons would be very small and the Court accepts the employer submission that its operational and administrative ability to accommodate individuals with a move to a fortnightly cycle is limited to a small number. The parties are disagreed as to the criteria that should be applied by the Head of HR in each area when deciding (a) whether genuine financial hardship exists in an individual case, and (b) whether such hardship arises solely from the cessation of ‘interim payments’. On the basis of the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows: That the employer should put in place an arrangement whereby any person who has experienced genuine financial hardship as a result of the cessation of the system of ‘interim payments’ in September 2021, can apply to move to fortnightly payroll. The decision on any such application should be made by the Head of HR in each CHO who will deal with the matter confidentially. The criteria for consideration and concession will be: Whether genuine financial hardship exists Whether that hardship arises only as a result of the cessation of the system of ‘interim payments’, and Whether a move to a fortnightly payroll will alleviate the hardship caused by the cessation of the system of ‘interim payments’. Where any person who has made application is dissatisfied with the decision of the Head of HR, he or she will have the right of confidential final appeal to a nominated senior manager in each area whose decision will be final. This recommendation is made on the basis that the number of staff likely to make such application is very small. The opportunity to make application should be available until 31stMarch 2022 only. The parties should jointly review the operation of the application system, including as regards the scale of application, at end-February 2022 with a view to addressing any issues which arise in the interim period. The Court so recommends.
NOTE |
