Croke Park Agreement....will it work?

Welease · 05-04-2011 1:41pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The discussion was actually about the CPA and will it work!

There is quite a difference in legal terms between a recomendation and a ruling of a court so it is valid.

There was no challange by the HSE in this case as to whether the Redundancy act could applied in this situation, so no legal challange was taken and the recommendatiosn by the labour court are not binding in anyway.

So I say the Jobs for life has still yet to be challanged in court!

So you are saying that the agreement exists, and that the HSE have never legally challenged it.. Agreed.. did anyone state anything different?
You seem to be desperate to win a discussion that only you are having.

You seem to agree that the OP was incorrect in suggesting it was a myth..
So I'm at a loss to why you have posted all of this in response to my correction of the previous posters error.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So I say the Jobs for life has still yet to be challanged in court!

So something cannot exist until it is challenged in the law court????? /boggle

RobbieTheRobber · 05-04-2011 3:48pm

Welease wrote: »

So something cannot exist until it is challenged in the law court????? /boggle

Again I never claimed it "cannot exist" I am questioning the legal standing of a claim to "a job for life" and my position is quite clearly that it doesnt really have a legal standing when considered with other legislation in the area of employment. IMO
Such as the redundacy act, which clearly sets out in legislation how an organisation can shed employees legally.

My position would then be stated as what is the validity of the claim of a job for life when this claim hasnt been legally challanged and also there is legislation in this area to allow organisations to make workers redundant(which would clearly mean the loss of jobs).

Welease · 05-04-2011 4:04pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Such as the redundacy act, which clearly sets out in legislation how an organisation can shed employees legally.

Those acts (in general) lay out rules on the restrictions for making employees redundant.. It is irrelevant to the HSE situation, as the contract doesn't allow for the forced redundancy of employees by downsizing etc.(and therefore no redundancy rules apply because you are not trying to make them redundant)...

If the HSE wanted to make people redundant, then you would have a point.. But they don't, and they didn't, and they haven't.. So again, I have no idea what point you are trying to make..

So why would anyone need to clarify the contract against an irrelevant law?

RobbieTheRobber · 05-04-2011 4:19pm

Welease wrote: »

Those acts (in general) lay out rules on the restrictions for making employees redundant.. It is irrelevant to the HSE situation, as the contract doesn't allow for the forced redundancy of employees by downsizing etc.(and therefore no redundancy rules apply because you are not trying to make them redundant)...

If the HSE wanted to make people redundant, then you would have a point.. But they don't, and they didn't, and they haven't.. So again, I have no idea what point you are trying to make..

So why would anyone need to clarify the contract against an irrelevant law?

Sorry how do you know the contract doesnt allow them to be made redundant?

RobbieTheRobber · 05-04-2011 4:21pm

How would a private sector company that wants to get rid of its employees do it, if there was neither a disciplinary reason for sacking them and the company didnt want to make them redundant. How in this case would Make Believe Company Limited get rid of these employees?

Welease · 05-04-2011 4:33pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Sorry how do you know the contract doesnt allow them to be made redundant?

Because I read the framework agreement? And neither Impact, HSE, Government or the Labour Courts dispute it?

(congrats ..this is getting even dumber now...............)

RobbieTheRobber · 05-04-2011 4:38pm

Welease wrote: »

Because I read the framework agreement? And neither Impact, HSE, Government or the Labour Courts dispute it?

(congrats ..this is getting even dumber now...............)

From an article in the journal it seems the HSE is considering forced redundancy

The shortfall in applications means the HSE will likely have to confider forced redundancies in the coming years, which would cost much more than seeking voluntary job losses.

http://www.thejournal.ie/final-number-of-hse-redundancy-applications-below-3000-2010-12/

How does that hold with your believe that it cant be done?

Edit: the irish medical times seems to agree and believes that fine gael will force redundancies

Fine Gael’s plan to dismantle the HSE in its current form could involve forced redundancies and is an “inevitable consequence” of the party’s FairCare proposals, the party’s Deputy Leader and health spokesperson Dr James Reilly has told Irish Medical Times.

http://www.imt.ie/features-opinion/2010/10/redundancies-part-of-hse-break-up-plan.html

now in light of that.
How would a private sector company that wants to get rid of its employees do it, if there was neither a disciplinary reason for sacking them and the company didnt want to make them redundant. How in this case would Make Believe Company Limited get rid of these employees?

Welease · 05-04-2011 4:40pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

How would a private sector company that wants to get rid of its employees do it, if there was neither a disciplinary reason for sacking them and the company didnt want to make them redundant. How in this case would Make Believe Company
Limited get rid of these employees?

(oops I spoke to soon)

What are you talking about?????

Why would a company who wanted to get rid of their employees not want to get rid of their employees (redundancy)...????? That doesnt even make sense.

Do you understand what non voluntary redundancy is?

If they wanted to make employees redundant (assuming not using a voluntary method), they would have to do this under the restrictions laid out by the redundancy act.. BUT THIS HAS NO RELATION TO THE HSE SITUATION!.
The HSE are not going down a redundancy route becuase they have an agreement with Impact not to go down this route. Thats is in the HSE framework.. It is nothing to do with the redundancy act, because under the agreement no one will be made redundant..

Would it help if I used another language?

RobbieTheRobber · 05-04-2011 4:46pm

Welease wrote: »

(oops I spoke to soon)

What are you talking about?????

Why would a company who wanted to get rid of their employees not want to get rid of their employees (redundancy)...????? That doesnt even make sense.

Do you understand what non voluntary redundancy is?

If they wanted to make employees redundant (assuming not using a voluntary method), they would have to do this under the restrictions laid out by the redundancy act.. BUT THIS HAS NO RELATION TO THE HSE SITUATION!.
The HSE are not going down a redundancy route becuase they have an agreement with Impact not to go down this route. Thats is in the HSE framework.. It is nothing to do with the redundancy act, because under the agreement no one will be made redundant..

Would it help if I used another language?

So what about the article from the journal suggesting that forced redundancies is the route and the medical times suggesting fine gaels proposal is for forced redundancies?

Welease · 05-04-2011 4:47pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

From an article in the journal it seems the HSE is considering forced redundancy

http://www.thejournal.ie/final-number-of-hse-redundancy-applications-below-3000-2010-12/

How does that hold with your believe that it cant be done?

oh lol you really are desperate..

Does the contract magically disappear because a journo says something?
The contract can be changed by mutual consent and tomorrow Impact and the HSE could agree all employees must have green hair and be called Brian. So anything can be done..but for now "jobs for life" exists within this HSE framework.

RobbieTheRobber · 05-04-2011 4:49pm

Welease wrote: »

oh lol you really are desperate..

Does the contract magically disappear because a journo says something?
The contract can be changed by mutual consent and tomorrow Impact and the HSE could agree all employees must have green hair and be called Brian. So anything can be done..but for now "jobs for life" exists within this HSE framework.

Where in the framework does it suggest that no redundancies can be made?

Welease · 05-04-2011 5:41pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Where in the framework does it suggest that no redundancies can be made?

I'm not going around in circles with you again because you lack basic comprehension of the information available..

RobbieTheRobber · 05-04-2011 6:31pm

Welease wrote: »

I'm not going around in circles with you again because you lack basic comprehension of the information available..

What circles where does it say no redundancies can take place in the HSE?

This should be easy you have read it, havent you?

Welease · 05-04-2011 6:38pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What circles where does it say no redundancies can take place in the HSE?

This should be easy you have read it, havent you?

Jeez i can't believe I am getting dragging back in to answer this..

The part that states

http://www.impact.ie/iopen24/pub/health/framework.pdf

"4. Job Security

Staff are guaranteed security of employment on transferring to the HSE. The parties agree that the term “permanent and pensionable” will be construed as conferring an entitlement on transferred staff to remain in their employment until they reach the retirement age stated in their contract save in the case of dismissal in accordance with agreed disciplinary procedures."

Stick with me on this.. It will take some comprehension that seems sadly lacking around here..

If a person has guaranteed security of employment, which means they can remain in their employment until retirement age... then.. wait for it... you can't put in mass redundancies..

It the same thing that has been posted for pages and pages, and it not going to magically mean something else the longer you fail to grasp the simple basic meaning.

RobbieTheRobber · 05-04-2011 6:42pm

Welease wrote: »

Jeez i can't believe I am getting dragging back in to answer this..

The part that states

http://www.impact.ie/iopen24/pub/health/framework.pdf

"4. Job Security

Staff are guaranteed security of employment on transferring to the HSE. The parties agree that the term “permanent and pensionable” will be construed as conferring an entitlement on transferred staff to remain in their employment until they reach the retirement age stated in their contract save in the case of dismissal in accordance with agreed disciplinary procedures."

Stick with me on this.. It will take some comprehension that seems sadly lacking around here..

If a person has guaranteed security of employment, which means they can remain in their employment until retirement age... then.. wait for it... you can't put in mass redundancies..

It the same thing that has been posted for pages and pages, and it not going to magically mean something else the longer you fail to grasp the simple basic meaning.

So in your esteemed legal opinion, this completly rules out any usage of the redundancy act and Your legal opinion is based on?

Welease · 05-04-2011 7:06pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So in your esteemed legal opinion, this completly rules out any usage of the redundancy act and Your legal opinion is based on?

That has been answered several times already..

How is the redundancy act relevant if you are not making people redundant?

Godge · 05-04-2011 9:31pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Are you trying to tell me that the legislation that is part of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 could not be used to cut out staff from the HSE?

Welease wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the act, so can't comment... Which parts?

As per the previous links.. The labour court already ruled on the "jobs for life" within the HSE.. and upheld it..

"In a landmark move that has far-reaching consequences for the health service, the Labour Court has said that the Health Service Executive should acknowledge that a ‘jobs for life’ agreement reached with the IMPACT trade union on the abolition of the health boards in 2004 will continue to have full force, unless it is terminated in a deal reached between the parties.
The Court backed the union on key points, including the status of the 2004 agreement and its relationship with the recent Croke Park agreement on public sector pay and reform."
http://www.imt.ie/opinion/guests/2010/06/union-wins-on-jobs-for-life.html

"In a recommendation issued yesterday evening, the Court said Impact union staff members should continue to enjoy guarantees of jobs for life made in late 2004 just before the HSE was established"
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=17266

The Labour Court judegement in question is not the highest legal ruling on this issue.

Some years ago there was a Supreme Court case that set the law out in this regard. I cannot find it on the net but from my recollection the facts and the judgement are as follows:

A woman was employed as a secretary in the VEC. In that capacity she had a normal job for life. A bishop offered her work as a secretary on the same terms and conditions as she had for the VEC. The bishop died (as they do) and the new bishop didn't like the look of the secretary and made her redundant. She sued the bishop as she said she had a job for life.

The supreme court found that anyone could be made redundant unless they had special conditions preventing that. They ruled that the bishop could make the secretary redundant as those conditions had not been met.

I would guess that IMPACT at least were aware of this judgement when making the deal with the HSE and therefore ensured that the guarantee given by the HSE at the time met the special conditions as laid down by the Supreme Court.

Someone with legal knowledge or a copy of the Supreme Court judgement might enlighten this debate further.

keithcan · 05-04-2011 10:25pm

I'm sorry but life's too short to read all the posts posted about whether technically or otherwise 'jobs for life' or right to sack exist in the PS.

But I would respectfully suggest to other PS that we're exposed here and we'd be better off if we acknowledge the reality of this challenge and the need to reform in this area. Even if staff can technically be removed for incompetence, it rarely if ever happens. Most areas of the PS that I've encountered have weak managements in terms of HR and underperformers are moved to the side, rather than challenged.

But here's the other side to this: just cos there is an amount of underperformance in the PS that is regretably less likely to get dealt with than in the private sector, it is a monsterous exaggeration to extrapolate from that issue that huge elements of the PS are underperforming or that in general, that most PS are not working good, worthwhile shifts.

RobbieTheRobber · 05-04-2011 11:27pm

Welease wrote: »

But the difference is.. Within the HSE (for example) a job for life is written into the contract and loss of that position can only come from disciplinary procedures.. In the Private Sector that type of contract would be extremely rare (if it exists at all), and people can be made redundant for a large variety of non disciplinary reasons.

Welease wrote: »

That has been answered several times already..

How is the redundancy act relevant if you are not making people redundant?

Because of your claim that in the private sector people can be made redundant for a large variety of reasons and how this differs for staff in the HSE.

So what are these large variety of reasons?

angelfire9 · 06-04-2011 1:09am

keithcan wrote: »

That's a pretty pathetic shot from someone associated with the gardai. I once heard a senior Garda comment when he was utterly frustrated at the non co-operation of rank + file Gardai with civilianisation of clerical posts that the reasons they were objecting was because the ambition of the average Garda is to be in out of the rain. Maybe that was an exaggeration. Maybe not. So maybe Michael O'Leary could clean up that act too??

I would have no problem with civilian clerical staff being employed to do some of the typing etc etc for Gardai where possible (subject to the official secrets act)

Some clerical stuff has to be done by Gardai though (like imputting info on Pulse and preparing files for the DPP for example)

keithcan · 06-04-2011 1:16am

angelfire9 wrote: »

I would have no problem with civilian clerical staff being employed to do some of the typing etc etc for Gardai where possible (subject to the official secrets act)

Some clerical stuff has to be done by Gardai though (like imputting info on Pulse and preparing files for the DPP for example)

All civil servants are subject to the official secrets act and are just as capable of keeping secrets as members of the force.

And its not just 'typing' that can be done by non-Gardai on behalf of the force: IT, HR, accommodation, Finance, Commissioner's Office, Press, Garda fleet, Pulse inputting (there's a bunch of civilian staff already at it in Castlebar), procurement, etc. In fairness, there's a fair bit of civilian involvement there as it is, but there's scope to do more imo, in order to keep Gardai for the core job that they are trained and paid for.

angelfire9 · 06-04-2011 1:35am

keithcan wrote: »

All civil servants are subject to the official secrets act and are just as capable of keeping secrets as members of the force.

And its not just 'typing' that can be done by non-Gardai on behalf of the force: IT, HR, accommodation, Finance, Commissioner's Office, Press, Garda fleet, Pulse inputting (there's a bunch of civilian staff already at it in Castlebar), procurement, etc. In fairness, there's a fair bit of civilian involvement there as it is, but there's scope to do more imo, in order to keep Gardai for the core job that they are trained and paid for.

No argument from me there
I assume though that the Garda Finance section is done by people in the Department of Finance?
Though they do have forensic accountants in CAB they are civilians AFAIK

I'd KILL (well maybe not kill but you know what i mean) for a job as a accountant with CAB

:D:D

As for PULSE I think some of it could be done by civilians certainly as well as the press office and procurement etc etc
Most Gardai dont go into the Gardai to become pencil pushers

Welease · 06-04-2011 8:03am

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Because of your claim that in the private sector people can be made redundant for a large variety of reasons and how this differs for staff in the HSE.

So what are these large variety of reasons?

Already been covered numerous times in this thread.. why not read it?.. or ask the 450K people on the dole how they lost their jobs?, or read the act you hold so precious?.. I'm sure it lists the numerous methods..

A variety of ways you can answer the question yourself, as it's only you that seems to have a problem understanding the framework.

Welease · 06-04-2011 8:22am

keithcan wrote: »

I'm sorry but life's too short to read all the posts posted about whether technically or otherwise 'jobs for life' or right to sack exist in the PS.

But I would respectfully suggest to other PS that we're exposed here and we'd be better off if we acknowledge the reality of this challenge and the need to reform in this area. Even if staff can technically be removed for incompetence, it rarely if ever happens. Most areas of the PS that I've encountered have weak managements in terms of HR and underperformers are moved to the side, rather than challenged.

But here's the other side to this: just cos there is an amount of underperformance in the PS that is regretably less likely to get dealt with than in the private sector, it is a monsterous exaggeration to extrapolate from that issue that huge elements of the PS are underperforming or that in general, that most PS are not working good, worthwhile shifts.

I couldn't agree more.. And going back years, my position has always been that the good hard working valuable members of the PS are being forced to take cuts/levies in order to keep these unnecessary staff on the payroll. The ongoing blind defense of this type of waste by some PS posters here hurts them directly in the pocket, and makes little or no difference to private sector workers like myself in terms of my income.. But it seems people have to take entrenched positions and blindly defend irrespective of the actual point being made..

Aggressive reform of the PS a few years ago would have minimized the need for levies and pay cuts..

In terms of this thread, I was just showing that the agreement does exist.. nothing more..

Croke Park Agreement....will it work?

Comments