LCR22601

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

NATIONAL FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE (NFMHS)
(REPRESENTED BY HSE CORPORATE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS)

- AND -

450 STAFF
(REPRESENTED BY PNA
SIPTU
FORSA
IMO
IHCA)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Compensation for relocation of the Service from Dundrum to Portrane.

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 1 April 2022 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26 May 2022.

UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Unions say that the rationale for their claim for compensation is based on several things including, for example, the fact that Management have requested all staff to move to the new location. No alternative redeployment options are being considered for staff.

2. Concession of the claim would incentivise the retention of as many staff as possible as required by the HSE.

3. This is a unique situation where a whole secure healthcare facility is being re-located to a new site.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. Management acknowledges that public service agreements do not explicitly provide for or envisage relocating highly secured services in the "lift and shift" manner proposed in this case.

2. Management states that the inadequacy of the existing facilities and the urgent need for improved services make it imperative that staff co-operate with this relocation as soon as possible.

3. Management recognise that this proposed move is a unique situation and that re-locations of this nature occur rarely in the health service.

RECOMMENDATION :

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The parties are agreed that the circumstances surrounding this dispute are unique in that

 it involves a complex and challenging move of an entire highly secured large health care facility and all patients and staff on a single day on a “lift and shift” basis.

 it is essential that the service retains the existing staff possessing the unique and specialised experience and skill set required to operate this facility and as a result no opportunity for re-deployment is being provided to existing staff and no exit opportunity is being made available to staff.•

A move of location in an urban setting of this scale and distance was not envisaged when re-deployment arrangements contained in public service pay agreements were devised and agreed.

 re-locations of this scale and distance have occurred only very rarely in the history of the health service

The Court has had particular regard to the history of constructive engagement between the parties in relation to this matter and what has been submitted to be the effective engagement of both sides on the complexities associated with the physical move and the relocation on a single day of a 100 year old secure facility to a new and modern setting for the benefit of the service as a whole.

The Court has carefully noted the remaining difference between the parties in terms of achieving an agreed resolution to the current dispute and their shared view as to the need to achieve a resolution.

Whereas reference has been made to the Court’s Recommendation LCR20043, the Court accepts that the numbers affected, the absence of a re-deployment opportunity together with the nature and scale of the event sets the within dispute apart from the matter addressed by the Court in that Recommendation.

Having regard therefore to the positions of the parties before the Court and to the acknowledged uniqueness of the re-location underlying the within dispute the Court recommends that, in full and final settlement of the dispute,

 all staff re-locating to the new facility receive a lump sum payment of €3,000

and an allocation of two additional days’ leave in each of leave years 2022 and 2023.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.