S.H.B. On - Call

Labour Court Ruling, 20th October 2003

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/03/493 RECOMMENDATION NO. 17634
(CC02/5263)

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD

- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr. Somers

SUBJECT:

1. Extra crews to reduce on-call as per an agreement with the Southern Health Board.


BACKGROUND:

2. The issue in dispute relates to a claim by the Union that an agreement of 14th December, 2001 exists with the Southern Health Board (SHB) for the reduction of on-call for Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT's) in Community Ambulance Stations. Under Clause 4 of the agreement the Union claims that an extra crew (two additional EMT's) should be assigned to each of the remaining eight Community Ambulance Stations. In early 2000 it was agreed that one additional crew would be assigned to Killarney, Mallow and Midleton stations resulting in a reduction in the number of hours EMT's were on call from 44 to 16 per week. Clause 4 of the December, 2001 agreement states:

"The Southern Health Board is committed to engage with SIPTU in negotiations which will lead to the standardisation of on-call and shift for EMT's working in Community Stations. This process will commence in June, 2002."

It is the Union's interpretation of this clause, in particular the use of the word standardisation, that the remaining eight stations would be dealt with in exactly the same manner as the three referred to above, i.e one extra crew to be assigned to each station. Management is in agreement of the necessity to reduce the level of on call but disputes the Union's interpretation of Clause 4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in June, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 8th October, 2003.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. There is an agreement in place with the SHB that all Community Hospitals in Cork and Kerry would have the same roster and on-call liability as was agreed at the meeting in December, 2001.

2. There are 32 EMT's working in these 8 hospitals who are doing 44 hours on-call per week, with no shift, while all other EMT's in the SHB are on a shift with on-call liability of 16 hours per week.

3. The SHB has failed to implement this agreement and has not taken action to resolve the issue.


BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The additional cost to implement the Union's requirement is currently estimated at €1.65 million.

2. The Union's interpretation of the word standardisation in Clause 4 of the agreement as being an absolute guarantee for the introduction of the terms and conditions that have already been introduced in seven stations. Management's understanding of standardisation is that:
the reduction of on-call
the introduction of shift
will be achieved for all ambulance personnel, but that does not mean the same roster right across the ambulance service. There are different rosters in different locations across the service currently.

3. The Board believes that the only avenue to further develop the ambulance service is to agree a comprehensive plan with the Union and seek approval for funding from the Department of Health and Children.


RECOMMENDATION :

The Court is conscious that this matter has been under discussion for some time and that the parties have differing interpretations as to what was agreed in previous discussions. The Court is also aware that a working party was set up to deal with this issue but that the Union withdrew because it disagreed with the terms of reference.

While Management stated that it continues to be committed to the elimination of "on call" this is clearly in the context of rationalisation of stations, in order to justify the package.

The Union is concerned at the time it is taking to arrive at an acceptable package for its members and at what it perceives to be a breach of agreement.

However, as the parties are aware the climate that prevailed during previous discussions has dramatically changed.

Given this situation the Court recommends that the parties enter into immediate discussions to agree a planned elimination of "on-call", while endeavouring to meet the aspirations of both sides.

In order to allay fears that these discussions could drag on, the Court recommends that the discussions be completed by 1st January, 2004.

If the parties fail to reach agreement the Court will, on request, make a definitive recommendation.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
20th October, 2003
TOD Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.