FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ROYAL VICTORIA EYE AND EAR HOSPITAL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MEDICAL ORGANISATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Incremental credit.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim for incremental credit under Clause 17 (a)(iii) of theNon-Consultant Hospital Doctor (NCHD) Contract 2010. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 19th January 2012, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 29th June 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no minimum level of involvement requirement set out in Clause 17(a) (iii) of the NCHD contract.
2. The private hospital concerned provided a wide range of services covering the contract.
3. The award should be backdated from the date of commencement with the Employer.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker was correctly placed on the incremental scale on appointment in July 2011.
2. The work undertaken by the Worker in the private hospital concerned was entirely of his own volition, and was not related to his training as an NCHD.
3.Concession of the claim would inevitably lead to similar claims nationally.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of an employee seeking incremental credit for a period when he was undertaking a Surgical MD postgraduate qualification course in NUIG while working as a Doctor in the Galway Clinic prior to his employment with the Respondent.
The Union referred to the Non-Consultant Hospital Doctor Contract 2010 which provides at Clause 17 (a)(iii) that incremental credit will be granted to NCHDs in respect of“time spent gaining a postgraduate qualification provided that during such time (s)he was actively engaged in hospital work”.
The Union stated that the Claimant’s postgraduate qualification course was a full-time research position from 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday and at times he was required to attend at weekends also. At the same time he was employed as a Resident Medical Officer at the Galway Clinic, working an average of 5 shifts per month, providing out-of-hours in-house care. The Union submitted that this period should be reckonable for incremental credit purposes.
The HSE, on behalf of the Royal Victoria Eye & Ear Hospital, stated that the work undertaken by the Claimant in the Galway Clinic was neither a requirement nor part of his postgraduate qualification course and consequently did not meet the criteria under Clause 17(a)(iii). It submitted that in order to qualify for incremental credit under this provision, an NCHD must have undertaken clinical work and have been actively engaged in such hospital work as part of the course.
Having considered the submissions made by both parties the Court is of the view that, while the wording of the provision in Clause 17(a)(iii) is not particularly clear, the interpretation given by the HSE is reasonable in the context of entitlement to incremental credit. In this case the Claimant was not engaged in hospital work as part of his course and, while he was engaged as a Doctor in the Galway Clinic, the meaning ascribed to “hospital work” under Clause 17(a)(iii) could potentially be extended to work other than in medicine. Consequently, the Court is of the view that HSE’s understanding of the necessity to be involved in work associated with the postgraduate qualification course is realistic in that context. Therefore, the Court does not find in favour of the Claimant’s claim. The Court so recommends.
The Court suggests that when it becomes due for renewal in 2014, the parties to the Non-Consultant Hospital Doctor Contract 2010 should further examine this provision to ensure that it meets its objective.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th July 2007______________________
CRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.