FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : EAST COAST AREA HEALTH BOARD - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. Arising from the re-structuring of the 'Command and Control' function of the Eastern Region ambulance service, ambulance controllers were re-located from their base in St James' Hospital to Townsend Street in February, 1998. The transfers created certain difficulties for those transferred and following third party intervention, the parties agreed that eight controllers would be transferred to administrative duties and up-graded to Clerical/Administrative Grade IV. However, this agreement has not yet been implemented.
The dispute before the Court concerns the failure of the parties to reach agreement on
proposals for the Ambulance Controllers in Townsend Street.
The Unions, on behalf of the workers concerned, are seeking:-
(1) A guaranteed future income.
(2) A package in lieu of loss of overtime.
(3) Compensation payment for stress and trauma.
(4) Retirement package.
(5) Personal development plan.
The Board's offer is as follows:-
(1) Redeployment to the controllers at the maximum of Grade IV salary scale, which includes the 2nd long service increment.
(2) Compensation for loss of overtime to be considered, based on average annual overtime earnings calculated on the basis of P60's for the last three years.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 6th of July, 2001. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th of July, 2001 in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 18th of September, 2001.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are moving to non-shift administrative areas. They are excluded from transferring to jobs within the Ambulance Service that attract premiums and allowances. Therefore, they should retain their allowances and premiums on an ongoing basis and also be compensated for the loss of overtime.
2. A compensation payment should be paid to the workers concerned for the suffering caused to them due to the failure to implement the agreement and the forced termination of their careers in the ambulance control area.
3. A retirement package should be offered to those who do not wish to undergo a change of career.
4. The Board agreed to provide resources to facilitate the workers concerned in deciding on a new career within the Board. However, no proposals have issued on the matter.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The redeployment of the workers concerned is taking place against the backdrop of national discussions regarding the ambulance service. Therefore, arrangements regarding these workers must have due regard to the national situation.
2. The Board rejects the Unions' claim for compensation for alleged stress and trauma caused to the workers due to non-implementation of the agreement. The onus was on all parties to implement the agreement, not just the Board.
3. The Unions should accept the salary offered and recognise that overtime earnings have been artificially inflated by the Unions' position in respect of recruitment to the control room and that any claim for loss of overtime earnings must take account of this fact.
RECOMMENDATION:
The subject matter of this investigation is a long standing dispute concerning the grading of Ambulance Controllers following their relocation in 1998, from James' Street to the control centre at Townsend Street in Dublin.
It is clear to the Court that the staff concerned agreed to relocate in the expectation that the posts would be regraded from Clerical/Administrative Grade III to Grade IV. Indeed, as was noted by the Court in Recommendation LCR16564, agreement in principle to the creation of a number of senior posts at Grade IV was reached following a process of negotiation and facilitation. However, final agreement could not be reached at that time and the dispute was referred to the Court.
In July, 2000, the Court issued Recommendation LCR16564 which sought to provide a basis on which the parties could reach final agreement of the regrading of the individuals concerned. However, agreement was not reached mainly because one of the Unions concerned could not accept that any adjustments agreed should be confined to those at the Townsend Street centre.
Following a threat of industrial action by one of the Unions, the dispute was the subject of discussions between Senior Government Officials and the Social Partners under the auspices of the National Implementation Body of the PPF. What emerged from those discussions was a proposal that the staff members associated with the dispute be offered suitable re-assignment, within the general Health Board service, to Grade IV posts. It was also agreed that any remaining issues would be referred to the Court.
It is against that background that the Court was asked to recommend on the terms of which the agreement reached in those discussions should be implemented.
Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that the dispute be finally resolved on the following basis:-
1. The parties should accept that the post in the Ambulance Control Centre cannot be regraded and that the only way in which the staff in question can attain Grade IV positions is by accepting re-assignment within the Health Board.
2. The formula proposed by the Board to compensate for loss of overtime earnings should be accepted subject to a minimum of £10,000 (12697.38 Euro) with no upper limit.
3. That in addition to the compensation referred to at 2 above, each individual re-assigned should receive a once-off payment of £10,000 (12697.38 Euro) in full and final settlement of all other claims for loss associated with the re-assignment.
4. In the event of any individual opting to remain in Townsend Street, on the current grading, the terms proposed by the Director of Conciliation dated 12th April 2001, should apply.
5. The parties should have further discussion to finalise the introduction of a Personal Development Plan.
These terms should be accepted as full and final settlement of all aspects of the dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th November, 2001______________________
G.B./C.C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.