MHB On-Call

THE LABOUR RELATIONS COMMISSION

An Coimisiún um Chaidreamh Oibreachais

TOM JOHNSON HOUSE,

RADDINGTON ROAD,

DUBLIN 4.

Teach Thoms Mac Seáin.

Bóthar Haddinton.

Baile Atha Cliath 4.

ADJUDICATION UNDER AMBULANCE AGREEMENT

AND

TECHNICAL UNION

Discussions on the abolition of on-call in the MHB area have been going on since at toast July 2000. At that time, however, the Issue of two-person crewing took precedence. Following the Issue of the Strategic Review of the Ambulance Service In 2001, which, inter alia, recommended;

“In the interest of patient care, health and safety of employees and responding effectively to emergencies, this group recommends strongly that these arrangements should be discontinued and replaced by an appropriate staffed 24 hour service”

attempts were made throughout the latter part of 2001 to obtain the necessary staffing and funding for the early elimination of on-call. These attempts were unsuccessful.

Following further discussions, which failed to produce agreement, the Union wrote to the MHB on 22^nd July 2002 as follows:

“We are to advise our members employed as Emergency Medical Technicians by your Health Board will withdraw from “on-calI, standby and related duties” at 8a.m. on Monday 9^th December 2002, unless the Midland Health Board agree to a time scale for the elimination of the above duties that is acceptable to our members.

It is our hope that the MHB will consider our position and enter into meaningful negotiations on our members long standing desire for the removal of “on call”

If the MHB wish to arrange a meeting for meaningful negotiations they should contact this office to agree a time and date for the meeting”

“As advised in the course of our conciliation talks under the auspices of the LRC in May 2002, on-call is an historical condition of employment for E.M.T.’s and continues to be a core duty and responsibility.

While tie Board is committed to implementing the recommendations contained in the national level review, i.e. that on-call should be eliminated, there are significant additional resources involved including a requirement for up to 35 additional E.M.T. personnel.

Following on from conciliation conference held on 2t July 2002, it was agreed that a Joint Union/Management working group be established and that it examine outstanding industrial relations issue and report by the end of September 2002.

Accordingly, I am requesting that SIPTU reconsider its position in relation to withdrawing from on-call, standby and agree that in the event of local level discussions failing to satisfactorily resolve the issue, that the matter be referred to the Labour Court, in line with established Industrial relations practices”.

1) Over the last number of years we have sought from your Health Board a time-scale for the removal of on-call. However, no such time-scale has been forthcoming.

2) As the practice of working up to 30 hour stretches is dangerous to our members and to the patients they am charged with caring for, our members have decided on the above course of action in their own interest and that of the patients’.

Following a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the LRC, at which agreement was not reached, the Board, at the request of the IRO, put the following position to the Union on 30^th October 2002.

“The MHB fully endorses the recommendations of the Strategic Review Group and is committed subject to the provision of the necessary funding, to the elimination of on-call within the timeframe specified in the Report of the Review Group 2001.

A Project Office is currently being established with the Health Boards Executive (He.B.E.) and this office will lead the implementation process of many of the key recommendations. It is expected that the implementation of the Review will commence in 2003 end the MHB will work closely with the Project Office previously mentioned to ensure mat priority attention is given to the strategic objective in relation to the elimination of on-call.

In the interim the Board Invites SIPTU to engage in a Partnership Forum, to carry out a detailed examination of rosters, activity levels, shift patterns, deployment of resources and work practices. The Board believes that this conjoint approach towards carrying out the above body of work will be critical in terms of both the smooth implementation of the strategic objectives and having developed action plans in pace in order to avail of any early opportunities that may arise in regard to drawing down available funding.

I trust the foregoing demonstrates the Board’s commitment to working towards the elimination of on-call and enables you to call off your proposed industrial action due to commence on Monday 9^th December 2002”.

Neither this, nor a further conciliation conference held on 5^th December 2002, produced a resolution and on 9” December 2002, E.M.T.’s at the Board’s 5 ambulance bases withdrew from the provision of on-call service.

Normally, at each of the Board’s five Ambulance Stations there is one on duty ambulance crew available to respond to emergency calls at night. The on-duty crews are supported by the on-call crews who are the subject of this dispute. During the dispute the on-duty crews are working as normal with the duties of the on-call crow being undertaken by the Defence Forces

Following one abortive attempt, an a adjudication hearing under the terms of the 1997 Ambulance Agreement was fin ally held on 27”’ February 2003.

Prior to adjudicating, I feel that, on behalf of the Commission, it is necessary to comment on how the matter got to where it now lies.

The provision under the 1997 Agreement whereby the LRC would be the final adjudicator on matters covered by the Agreement was just that and referred solely to the Agreement and its interpretation. It was never meant to be a means of resolving industrial disputes by Arbitration. To use it in such a manner is an abuse of procedure, especially where conciliation under the terms of the 1990 Act has taken place. It is inimical to the role of the Conciliation Service of the LRC to have an officer or officers of that Service arbitrating on a dispute which should properly be referred to the Labour Court for resolution. The fact that the action has continued right through the process and the parties failure to engage unsuccessfully, even after the adjudication hearing, only exacerbate the Commission’s sense of frustration at such abuse of the spirit of the 1997 Agreement.

DECISION

2) The Board should agree in principle to the Implementation of (Inter alia) the recommendation in the Report of the Strategic Review of the Ambulance Service regarding be elimination of on-call. As the Board has publicly stated that there are no funds to achieve this in 2003, and as the first priority of the Health Service must be services to it’s primary customer, this should now be achieved no later than the beginning of 2004 funding year, whether at a stroke or phased up to this date_. This should be the subject of Management/Union discussions locally

(b) A number of rosters suggested by the Union side at the adjudication hearing on 27th February 2003.

4) In the Interim period, the Union side should voluntarily provide a level of on-call cover no less than that being provided now by the Defence Forces, always keeping patient care as the primary consideration.

5) The decision above is final. It is self-explanatory and not subject to further clarification from the LRC, whose role in this matter is now ended. Should either party choose to ignore or reject the decision or any part of it, the matter is now outside of the jurisdiction of the LRC and the only further procedural avenue open to the parties, as conciliation under the 1990 Act has taken place, is to refer the matter to the Labour Court. To do so, following adjudication, however, will, do facto, render the process used here null and void, not only in regard to, this case, but for the future.