FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROYAL VICTORIA EYE & EAR HOSPITAL - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Review of pilot collective agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is on behalf of four Medical secretaries, also known as Clinic Secretaries, and is for a goodwill gesture for additional duties taken on by the four Secretaries from 2003 onwards. Up to June, 2003, the Secretaries were classified as Medical Typists and typing was the only duty they performed. An arrangement was put in place which broadened their role to that of Medical Secretary (the Union supplied details of the additional duties which included telephone work and liaising between Consultants, GPs and patients). A Patient Services Manager (PSM) who had direct responsibility for the Secretaries was appointed by the Hospital. The Union claims that the new system was to be reviewed after six months but that this did not happen and, as a result, the Union became involved in 2005.
A number of meetings at local level took place but agreement could not be reached and the issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. At a conciliation conference in December, 2007, the Hospital offered 2 days' additional leave but this could only be taken in a fragmented way and was rejected by the Union. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd January, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th April, 2008
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Hospital failed to properly monitor the new system in 2003 and it did not review the arrangement at the conclusion of the trial period.
2. The Union is seeking a once-off goodwill gesture in recognition of the continued co-operation of staff for what was a unique set of circumstances. The issue has been ongoing for a considerable amount of time.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Whilst there were initially "teething" problems with the new arrangements in 2003 these were sorted out. Management met with the Secretaries after three months and addressed the issues raised. There was also regular contact between the PSM and staff.
2. The Hospital believes that the changes introduced in 2003 provided the secretaries with a more diverse and interesting job.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court does not understand this claim to be in respect to compensation for cooperation with on-going change. Such a claim would be clearly unsustainable having regard to the terms of the pay agreement associated with Towards 2016.
It is clear to the Court that some difficulties arose in resolving problems which arose in the new arrangements which were introduced in the work of the Claimants. In the Court's view it is not unreasonable for the Union to seek some gesture in acknowledgement of the inconvenience experienced by its members in seeking to have these difficulties resolved.
The Court believes that an appropriate gesture in that regard would be the granting of two days' additional leave to those affected on a once-off basis in the current leave year. These days could be granted together where this is requested.
Such a gesture would not contravene the current national agreement in that, on the submissions made, it is clear that it could be granted on a cost neutral basis and could have no precedent value. It is also noted that the problems giving rise to the claim have been resolved.
The Court recommends that the dispute be resolved on this basis.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
1st May, 2008.______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.