FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Contracts For Home Helps
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the non-implementation of a 2009 agreement regarding contracts for Home Helps. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th March, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th June, 2012.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3 1 It was contended that the Home Helps were entitled to have honoured by the Employer an agreement made as far back as 2009 and that the Employer should not be paying money to private contracting companies which could be made to Home Helps.
2 Although it was accepted that working hours were not constant it was submitted that Home Helps should be offered redeployment if there was any reduction in their hours.
3 Where redeployment might not be possible it was argued that Home Helps should be financially compensated for any cuts in hours.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The 2009 agreement had to be seen in the light of the Employer's reduced finances.
2 The Employer, although willing to engage in discussions, could not consent to any measure with cost-increasing implications and did not deny that it was using private contract companies.
3. The agreement reached was not denied by the Employer but it felt unable to comply with historic moral obligations.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court referred by both SIPTU and IMPACT concerns a claim on behalf of approximately 9,000 Home Helps for implementation of an agreement reached in 2009 on providing contracts of employment and compensation payments in situations where hours are reduced. The Unions also sought redeployment when hours fluctuate.
HSE Management stated that it was prepared to enter further discussions on concluding an agreement within the context of its reducing budget for the Home Help Service and its requirement to provide a Home Help Health Care package via private agencies.
Having considered the positions of both sides the Court is of the view that the 2009 Agreement which refined an earlier agreement of 2007 was reasonable and practical in circumstances where the hours of work of the Home Help Service fluctuate to such an extent.
The Court recommends that the 2009 Agreement should be used to conclude a final agreement that addresses all issues raised by the Unions and takes into account all the circumstances raised by the HSE. The parties should enter into meaningful discussions on finalising this new agreement, which should be completed within one month of the date of this Recommendation. In the event that there are any outstanding issues they may be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
29th June, 2012______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.