FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH) - AND - 7000 HEALTH WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MEDICAL ORGANISATION) DIVISION:
SUBJECT: 1.Building Momentum-Sectoral Bargaining Payments To Medical/Dental Bargaining Group 2. The DPER response (appendix 3) in relation to the individual terms falls far short of what is required particularly considering The IMO are talking about relatively smaller amounts in the larger scheme of things and that will come off the overall fund in any event.
2. The IMO have indicated that they will not accept any of the new proposals presented by Management. They further objected to the condition to impose 1% on those over 150k as it was not written into Building Momentum despite FEMPI restoration being a ‘foreseen’ issue.
The Union along with the HSE and Dept of Health engaged on the following issues with a view to having them addressed under the Sectoral Bargaining element of Building momentum. Area medical Officers (AMO)- Parity with Senior Medical Officers (SAMO). Community Ophthalmic physicians (COP) Implementation of Devine Report Occupational Health Physicians (OHP) regularisation of pay scales. Sexual Assault Treatment Unit (SATU)- increase in on call. Considerable progress was made between the parties with a position reached wherein there was agreement in principle on how these issues would be progressed and on the basis that they could be closed out under sectoral bargaining. As provided for in section 2.1.2 of the agreement, the IMO opted to use the 1% Sectoral Fund to address pressure points within their cohort of members by way of sector-based pay awards. In line with the requirements of section 2.2.3 the proposals agreed by the Union, HSE and Department of Health were submitted to DPER for verification, albeit not within the time frame specified in the agreement. DPER initially approved two out of the four proposals noting that the proposal in respect of the Sexual Assault Treatment Unit was to increase the on-call allowance, and that was contrary to paragraph 2.3.3 of the agreement and was also a new complaint and therefore was not covered by the sectoral bargaining element of Building Momentum. However, a short time later the Employer informed the Unions that the official position was that staff earning more than €150,000 had to take the 1% pay increase and that the money could not be put into the sectoral bargaining fund. This meant that there were insufficient funds in the pool to implement the proposals put forward. The Union do not accept that Building Momentum requires that staff earning more than €150,000 take the 1% pay increase or that they are excluded from sectoral bargaining clauses contained in that agreement. Discussion It was accepted by the parties that the Court is being asked to interpret an element of the Building Momentum agreement which they had both signed up to, in terms of whether or not the IMO proposals conformed with the sectoral bargaining provisions. It was also accepted that the issues had been through all the internal mechanisms provided for in that agreement, prior to being referred to the Court. The Employer suggested, that in respect of the Sexual Assault treatment Unit (SATU) increase in on call claim, as this claim did not fall squarely within the terms of the sectoral bargaining clause, this issue was capable of being resolved in its own right once the sectoral bargaining issues have been resolved. The Court asked the Employer to identify the paragraphs of Building Momentum that they believe the IMO proposal was not in conformity with, and in particular the paragraph that stated that those earning in excess of €150,000 were excluded from having there 1% included in the sectoral pot and had to take the 1% flat increase. The Employer accepted that there was nothing in section 2.1 process overview, indicating that certain workers would not have access to sectoral bargaining. It was their submission that they were relying on paragraph 3.1.4 which states.
The next issue raised by the Employer was that the nature of the increases provided for in the proposals put forward by the IMO would amount to significant increased costs outside of Government pay policy. In terms of where this was contrary to the Building Momentum agreement, the Employer drew the Court’s attention to paragraph 2.3.2 which states “theparties agree that this process cannot give rise to unintended cost increasing outcomes which would serve to increase Exchequer costs beyond the allocated quantum”. In response to questions from the Court the Employer accepted that this paragraph made no mention of significant increase costs, or Government pay policy. They confirmed that they had nothing to put before the Court to show that the proposals would give rise to “unintended costs” and that they had not identified any unintended costs arising from the proposals. They also accepted that the wording they were relying on i.e.”that the nature of the increases provided for on the proposals put forward by the IMO would amount to significant increased costs outside of Government pay policy” werenot contained within the Building Momentum agreement. Recommendation The Court, noting that the issue before it was whether or not the IMO proposals were contrary to the Building Momentum agreement, and having read the parties submissions and listened to the oral submissions, concludes that the proposals with the exception of the fourth proposal as set out earlier in this recommendation are not in breach of Building Momentum. The Court comes to this conclusion, on the basis that the Employer has been unable to point to any specific clause of the agreement that the implementation of these proposals would breach. The Court therefore recommends that the proposals as accepted by the IMO, DEPT of Health and HSE with the exception of the proposal in respect of the Sexual Assault Treatment Unit (SATU), be implemented without further delay, as provided for in the Sectoral Bargaining clauses of Building Momentum. The Court also notes the position of the HSE as articulated at the hearing in respect of the Sexual Assault Treatment Unit (SATU)- increase in on call. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary. |
