FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AUTOMOBILE, GENERAL ENGINEERING AND MECHANICAL OPERATIVES UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Claim for regrading / Operational changes.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is on behalf of its members who are employed as Donor Attendants and Driver Clerks. Although there are a number of issues involved, the main one is to have the workers concerned upgraded from Grade 3 to Grade 4. The Union is also seeking the following: full implementation of the 1996 Public Sector Agreement, compensation for loss of earnings due to the introduction of new technology,
and credit transfer for workers in the Limerick Clinic who transferred to the Service in 1986.
The Service, for its part, is seeking a number of changes in work practices, including the introduction of "Progesa" a computerised system for the tracking of blood. In 1997, an agreement was reached which provided for the introduction of new technology, and a similar agreement was introduced in 1999. Progesa was to have been introduced in April, 2000, but shortly before this happened the workers concerned withdrew their co-operation. The same thing happened in February, 2001.
In 1999, a job evaluation of Donor Attendants and Driver Clerks resulted in an IPC report which decided that their appropriate grade was Grade 3. The Union believes that with the amount of co-operation already given, the workers should be ungraded to Grade 4.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a number of conciliation conferences took place between March and July, 2001. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th of July, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th of September, 2001.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The job of the workers has changed considerably over the years due to the constant changes and nature of the work.
2. The workers were only slightly short of the 129 points needed for Grade 4 in the 1999 job evaluation. The Unions believe that they should have had a higher score. Further, the Service is now proposing the introduction of Progesa, which will be additional responsibility for the workers but of huge benefit to the Service (details supplied to the Court).
3. The 1997 agreement did not give the Service 'carte blanche' to introduce new technology without conceding any further payments for same. The 1999 agreement gave the Service the right to introduce new technology but the introduction of Progesa was not discussed. The workers have, however, co-operated in the training sessions for Progesa.
SERVICE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1997 agreement provided for the full co-operation of staff in all aspects of the designing, installation and operation of new technology. As a result, all staff received an additional 4 days' annual leave.
2. The job evaluation in 1999 (the IPC report) found that the workers were properly graded as Grade 3. The Unions had made a similar claim for upgrading in August, 1999, but this was rejected by the Labour Court in LCR16303.
3. The refusal of the workers to co-operate with the introduction of Progesa has caused grave difficulties for the Service, and effectively blocks attempts to put in place safer systems and procedures. It has also been hugely expensive.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that the organisation has been going through major change in recent times and has received significant public attention.
This situation is adding to the tensions within the organisation, and has not been conducive to reaching agreements on disputed issues.
Both sides have made comprehensive written and oral submissions to the Court. The Union wants the Court to deal with the issues not resolved at conciliation i.e. overtime payments, compensation for loss of earnings, full implementation of 1996 Public Service Agreement and an upgrading for its members. Another issue relates to the Limerick Clinic incremental credits.
Management is seeking full implementation of the Progesa, and major changes in rostering and work practices.
Management's claim that it has paid in previous agreements for this change is disputed by the employees, who argue that the type of change proposed is not covered by the agreement.
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, recommends the following:
Grading:
The Management offer of a Grade 3 plus payment of 5% to be increased to a Grade 3 plus payment of 10%.
Loss of Earnings
The Court recommends that loss of earnings be calculated at one and a half times the loss.
Limerick Clinic
It was put to the Court that Management had conceded service accrued before transfer to B.T.S., but only for redundancy purposes. The Court recommends that this concession be extended to cover incremental credits for those affected.
The Court also recommends that the proposals in the I.P.C Report to establish seven/nine Donor Attendant /Staff Trainer posts should be immediately implemented.
In return for the above, the Union to agree the proposed changes in work practices and rostering arrangements, including full implementation of the Progesa System.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
19th November, 2001______________________
CON/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.