Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8790 Case Number: LCR11140 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GALWAY ASSOC MENTALLY HANDICAP - and - ITGWU |
Claim, by the Union, for the maintenance of conditions of employment for new recruits.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, was not party to the negotiations which took place
between the Department of Health and L.G.P.S.U. which led to the
issue of the circular of 28th September, 1984. The Court
accordingly will not express any view as to what may have been
intended by the parties to that circular.
The Court, recommends that the Association negotiate with the
Union here concerned with regard to any proposed alterations of
conditions for either existing or new members.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8790 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11140
CC861542 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11140
Parties: GALWAY COUNTY ASSOCIATION FOR
MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, by the Union, for the maintenance of conditions of
employment for new recruits.
Background:
2. The Association operates a number of units throughout the
region. The Local Government and Public Services Union
(L.G.P.S.U.) represents most members of the staff, however, the
Union concerned in this dispute also represents some staff. On
26th March, 1986, a circular was issued to staff, outlining new
conditions as directed by the Department of Health for week-end
premiums, to be applied from 1st April, 1986. These new
conditions were as follows; the previous conditions are in
brackets:
(i) Saturday work #1.50 (#3)
(ii) Sunday work #3 (double time)
(iii) A payment of #8 per night for 'sleeping in'. 'Sleeping
in' time to be a continuous period of 8 hours between 8
pm. and 8 am. and outside the normal 40 hours duty (#6
per week night and #9 per Sunday night).
On 17th April, 1986, the Union, which had no prior consultation on
the matter, informed the Association that the changes were
unacceptable. A meeting between the parties took place on 21st
April, 1986, but no progress was made. On 7th May, the L.G.P.S.U.
met with the Association and it was agreed that no changes would
affect the existing staff and the 'sleeping in' allowance, which
had been agreed in principle by the Union, would be implemented
across the board and that the conditions as outlined in the
Department of Health directive would apply to new entrants only.
The Union objected to this on the basis that it was not a party to
the agreement between the Department and L.G.P.S.U., which led to
the directive and because implementation of the directive would
create two categories of staff within the same grade. On 17th
September, 1986, the Union referred the matter to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 3rd December, 1986, however, no resolution of the matter was
reached and on 9th February, 1987, the issue was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on 25th March, 1987, in Galway.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Association contend that funding from the Western
Health Board (W.H.B.) has to be in accordance with the
directive. However, the W.H.B. say that the internal
conditions of employment in voluntary organisations are
not their concern. The Union believes that the
Association has decided to undertake a cost-cutting
exercise. This should not be directed against new
employees.
(b) The W.H.B. themselves recognise that the correct
premium for Sunday work is double time. It would be
inconsistent for the W.H.B. to expect voluntary
organisations to pay less than they pay their own
staff. No voluntary organisation has worsened the
conditions for new employees as a result of the
directive or adopted it as a rationalisation.
(c) While the Union acknowledges that good sense prevailed
in the case of existing employees, savings for the
Association are minimal. If the conditions change, it
will undoubtedly lead to a future problem that will be
impossible to resolve. Staff doing the same work will
be remunerated differently; this in itself is
unacceptable to the Union.
Association's arguments:
4. (i) The issuing of the directive by the Department of
Health was as a result of negotiations by the
L.G.P.S.U. to get uniform payment for unsocial hours.
The L.G.P.S.U. who represent most members of staff,
accept the agreement made with the Department.
(ii) All staff employed prior to 1st May, 1986, maintain
their original conditions plus the improved
"sleeping-in" rate and only new entrants receive the
conditions as laid down by the Department directive.
The Department says that this directive must be
implemented.
(iii) If, as a result of further negotiations for enhanced
payments to be applied to the working of un-social
hours, the Association will implement any improvement
as a matter of course.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, was not party to the negotiations which took place
between the Department of Health and L.G.P.S.U. which led to the
issue of the circular of 28th September, 1984. The Court
accordingly will not express any view as to what may have been
intended by the parties to that circular.
The Court, recommends that the Association negotiate with the
Union here concerned with regard to any proposed alterations of
conditions for either existing or new members.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
Deputy Chairman.
26th April, 1987.
B.O'N./J.C.