FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES: HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE (REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH) - AND - INMO PSYCHIATRIC NURSES' ASSOCIATION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION:
SUBJECT: 1.Implementation of Agreed Recommendations 44,45, &46 of Expert Review Body on Nursing and Midwifery RECOMMENDATION: Background The issues underpinning this trade dispute arise from earlier recommendations of the Court in early 2019 which, amongst many other matters, recommended in the context of the significant planned reform of health services, an expert review of the nursing profession. Both parties accepted those recommendations and engaged fully with the Expert Review Group (ERG) later established. The recommendations of the Court, which were accepted by all parties, was that the ERG would complete its work “during the lifetime of the PSSA” [Public Service Stability Agreement]. The PSSA expired in 2020. The ERG, for various reasons, did not complete its work until March 2022. The report of the group contained 47 recommendations which, the Court understands, have been accepted in full by both parties. The trade dispute now before the Court concerns the arrangements for implementation of three of those recommendations (recommendations 44, 45 and 46 of the ERG) which impinge upon the pay structures applicable to the PHN, CNM2, CMM2, CNM3 and CMM3 grades. Issues associated with the parties’ collective pay agreement Both parties, having accepted the three ERG recommendations at issue, can be concluded to have accepted that the implementation of these recommendations is necessary in order to secure the reform of the health services which was the underpinning objective of the ERG and indeed of the Court’s recommendations in 2019 in the context of the implementation of Sláintecare. This trade dispute came before the Court in January 2023. At that time the central element of the dispute was the conflict between the parties as to whether the implementation of the recommendations of the ERG amounted to a cost increasing claim of the Trade Unions in contravention of the parties’ Building Momentum public service pay agreement or otherwise offended against the terms of that agreement. At that earlier hearing the parties agreed that, in order to resolve this disagreement between the parties as regards their collective agreement, the matter should be considered and resolved by the structures they had jointly established to resolve such disputes. The Court is informed that the Public Service Agreement Group (PSAG) has since considered the dispute and the parties have informed the Court that PSAG, in April 2023, decided that ‘the case may be progressed on its merits to the Labour Court under Section 20(2) of the IR Act, 1969’ The Court, having regard to the basis for consideration by the PSAG of the matter following the Court’s earlier and adjourned hearing, must conclude that any matter of disagreement between the parties as to whether the matter amounted to a cost increasing claim in contravention of the parties’ collective agreement or otherwise offended against the terms of that agreement was considered and resolved by the PSAG. The Court therefore concludes that it would not be appropriate for this Court to now express a view, for example, as to whether the implementation of a change to the pay structures of these grades on the basis of acceptance by the employer of a recommendation to do so made by the ERG, could be fairly characterised as a claim made by the trade unions in the normal industrial relations sense of that term. The dispute The parties have clarified that the matter to be decided by the Court under their joint referral is now the matter of the timing of implementation of the accepted recommendations at issue. The trade unions submit that the recommendations should be implemented with effect from 1stJanuary 2022. The employer side submits that the recommendations should be implemented on 1stJanuary 2024 on condition that a successor collective agreement to Building Momentum has been agreed between the parties by that date. The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties and notes in particular that matters associated with the meaning and operation of the parties’ collective agreement have been considered by the PSAG. The Court is asked to make a recommendation as to the timing of implementation of the three recommendations of the ERG. The trade unions submit that the Court can only resolve this trade dispute as regards timing by setting a date for implementation of the accepted recommendations. The employer side submits that the dispute as regards timing of implementation can be resolved by setting a date, proposed to be 1stJanuary 2024, which will be applied in the event of the conclusion of a separate public service collective agreement by that date. The Court notes that the conclusion of any successor collective agreement to Building Momentum will depend on a set of negotiations between a range of parties who are not before the Court and voluntary decision making by all parties thereafter. These processes of engagement may or may not result in the conclusion of an agreement. The employer side has made no submission as regards timing of implementation of the three recommendations of the ERG in the event that no national collective agreement involving all public service employers and workers is in place by 1stJanuary 2024. Noting the fact that matters which prevented the Court from making a recommendation at its earlier hearing must have been resolved by PSAG, the Court puts forward the following recommendation for resolution of this trade dispute. This Recommendation is made on the Court’s understanding, given to it by the parties, that the recommendations of the ERG have been formulated in the context of co-operation of the grades with the significant reform of health services and the related flexibilities and change required including by the implementation of Sláintecare. The Court therefore recommends that:
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary. |
