Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87524 Case Number: LCR11368 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of five porters for compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
5. In the special circumstances and historical background of the
case, the Court recommends that the five porters who previously
worked overtime on a rostered basis from 5 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
be paid a sum equal to six months' loss of overtime earnings.
In the present financial circumstances of the Hospital, the Court
does not recommend any compensation for further proposed
reductions in overtime for porters.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87524 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11368
CC87724 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11368
PARTIES: SAINT LUKE'S HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (NO. 15 BRANCH)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of five porters for compensation for loss of
overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to the introduction of the linear accelerator machine
in the Hospital's Radiotherapy Department in late 1985, overtime
was available for one porter between the hours of 5 p.m. and 9
p.m. and for another porter between 5 p.m. and 7.30 p.m.
Following the introduction of the machine Management decided that
portering cover was no longer needed in this area and considered
eliminating both periods. However, following representations by
the Union, it was decided to retain the 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. overtime
period and the Union agreed to defer for twelve months a claim for
compensation for lost earnings. Management has now decided that
the cover during the 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. overtime period is no longer
essential and has decided to eliminate this also. The Union
lodged a claim for compensation for lost overtime earnings but
this was rejected by Management and as no local level agreement
could be reached the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 1st May, 1987. No agreement
was reached at a conciliation conference held on the 25th June,
and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 30th July,
1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The linear accelerator machine was installed for two
years before it came into operation. This delay was
due to the fact that the radiographers would not agree
to operate the new system until they were compensated
for their impending loss. This claim went to the
Labour Court which found in the radiographers' favour
(LCR10403 refers). The portering staff did not,
however, adopt such an intransigent attitude but
instead agreed to co-operate with the new system, even
though it meant that they were going to suffer a loss
of overtime earnings.
(b) The portering staff, who are at the very bottom of the
hierarchial structure within the hospital, were
required to do overtime and had to arrange for someone
to deputise if one was unable to work on a particular
evening. In the agreement between the Union and the
Department of Health there is a clause which ensures
that the porters must give cover as requested by the
Employer.
(c) The workers concerned have become used to overtime
earnings being part of their take-home pay. In view of
the increase in the cost of living and the drop in the
value of money, they are opposed to any change in which
they will suffer a loss of earnings. Furthermore, in
view of the savings which will accrue with the
introduction of the new machine, the Union considers
that there should be no difficulty in paying out
compensation.
(d) In 1982, the Labour Court recommended that hospital
porters and household staff in the Dublin Voluntary
Hospitals should receive average pay when going on
holidays (LCR7318 refers). With the reduction in
overtime earnings it means that this particular benefit
has lost its value. The additional payment when going
on holidays is considered a great benefit as these
workers cannot earn production bonuses or commission.
In view of the fact that these workers got used to
these earnings and the majority are rearing young
families, the Union is seeking two and a half times the
annual loss as a minimum payment. Compensation for
loss of earnings has already been recommended by the
Labour Court in similar claims (details supplied to the
Court).
(e) The Union opposes Management's argument concerning the
present financial crisis in the health services on the
basis that the purchase of the new machine was planned
long before the present crisis. The portering staff
could have refused to co-operate in the working of the
new machine just as the radiographers did but instead,
at the request of Management, agreed to wait for twelve
months in order to pursue the claim. The Union does
not consider that its members should be penalised due
to the fact that they acted in a responsible manner and
co-operated with Management.
(f) The Union's claim to the Court was originally for
compensation in respect of lost overtime earnings when
the 5 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. period was eliminated. Now
that Management is proposing to also eliminate the 5
p.m. to 9 p.m. period, the Union is seeking the same
level of compensation for this, i.e. two and a half
times the annual loss.
Management's arguments:
4. (a) The present financial state of affairs leaves the
Hospital with little option but to implement savings
throughout all areas with immediate effect. The
Hospital cannot justify the retention of unessential
overtime in this climate.
(b) Compensation for loss of earnings cannot be paid
because the cost of same must be met by reducing other
expenditure. As payroll costs represent the most
significant running cost of the Hospital it is
therefore inevitable that further reductions will come
from this area.
(c) The Hospital is concerned that the payment of any
compensation for loss of overtime would have
implications for other grades in the Hospital who have
also been affected by the cutbacks. It might be noted
that painters in the Hospital have also had their
overtime reduced by one and a half hours per day (a
total of 15 hours between two painters) and no
compensation has been paid. This recent overtime cut
for painters follows the larger reduction in overtime
in 1985.
(d) Portering staff can still avail of a very large amount
of overtime. No other category in the Hospital enjoys
such overtime earnings.
(e) The pool of portering staff have already had the
benefit of four hours overtime (5.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.)
for the past year and a half, even though it has become
apparent to Management that same was not entirely
essential.
(f) It must be pointed out to the Court that any award of
compensation would have serious repercussions
throughout the Health Service. All categories
throughout all hospitals have suffered deteriorations
in their conditions of employment and reductions in
earnings including loss of overtime, differentials etc.
It has generally been accepted by staff that such
measures, although somewhat unpalatable, are necessary.
It is also common knowledge that many people have lost
their jobs in the Health Service. When taken in this
context, the present case is far from exceptional. The
present state of finances in the Health Service
precludes concession of compensation claims.
(g) The Hospital believes that the radiographers case
should not be used as a basis for this claim. The
portering staff are not required to operate new
equipment or new work practices as a result of the
introduction of the machine. Furthermore, the
radiographers suffered a total elimination of
additional earnings whereas the effect on portering
staff was a reduction in overtime earnings and there
are still significant overtime earnings available
within the Hospital.