Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87809 Case Number: LCR11582 Section / Act: S67 Parties: - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Union concerning Management's right to redeploy two workers and compensation for the loss of earnings resulting from proposed redeployment.
Recommendation:
6. There was disagreement between the parties as to whether the
two claimants were designated as 'general operatives' or
'boilermen' and there was, therefore, a conflict of views between
them as to the right of Management to redeploy the two workers.
There was not sufficient documentation available to enable the
Court to determine this question.
7. However, the Court accepts that there is not sufficient work
in the boilerhouse to warrant full-time employment for the workers
concerned arising from automation and that their redeployment is
now the best option available. The Court is also of the view that
Management has endeavoured to the best of its ability to cushion
the loss of earnings arising from redeployment. In the present
financial circumstances of the Health Service, the Court does not
find it possible to recommend any further special payments arising
from the changes in duties.
8. The Court, therefore, recommends that the Union should accept
Management's proposals in this case.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87809 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11582
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PEAMOUNT HOSPITAL
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning Management's right to redeploy
two workers and compensation for the loss of earnings resulting
from proposed redeployment.
BACKGROUND:
2. Due to the introduction of automated boilers, 24-hour cover is
no longer required of the boilermen. Management proposed that the
boilermen would perform security duties, which is currently done
on contract, as well as checking the boilers at various times
during their shift. In the new position they will be working a
week on, week off, i.e. 80 hours over two weeks, compared with the
present 56 hour per week. Management pointed out that flexibility
of duty exists among all general operatives as a result of a 1978
Agreement on parity with the Eastern Health Board. The Union
contended that the Agreement did not give management any rights to
change the duties of boilermen and that the new position would
involve a decrease in earnings. The present earnings of a
boilerman are made up as follows -
Basic Pay #156.34
Shift Rate # 26.05
Weekends #117.06
#299.55
Under the new position earnings would be the following -
Bonus Pay of General Operatives #149.49
Shift Rate #37.63
Weekends #45.11
Boiler duty allowance #15.00
#247.23
3. The Union contended that this level of earnings would be
further reduced because the weekend premium would only be paid
every second week and that the boiler allowance would not be paid
during the summer months. As a result the loss would be
approximately #4,000 per annum for each boilerman. On 23rd
September, 1987, the dispute was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. As agreement was not achieved at a
conciliation conference held on 27th October, 1987, the matter was
referred to the Labour Court on 28th October, 1987, for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
26th November, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned are clearly designated as
boilermen. The Union contends that Management is in breach
of the 1979 Agreement in attempting to redeploy boilermen to
a grade of staff which is not recognised in that or any other
agreement between the Union and the Management.
2. Management justification for the proposed change is that
automation has taken place. The Union believes that the only
automation that has taken place is that a time clock has been
installed. The workers concerned will still retain a large
amount of boilerhouse duties (details provided to the Court).
3. The workers' concerned will suffer an annual loss of
approximately #4,000 if re-deployment takes place. It is
reasonable therefore, to expect compensation, particularly
where rates of pay have conditioned them to a certain
expectancy of income and standard of living
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The workers involved are general operatives and therefore
they are covered by the general clause on flexibility, which
exists among all general operatives. Management maintains it
has the right to move them from their current work place.
2. As a result of the severe cut-backs in the Health
Service, the hospital is involved in a major cost-cutting
exercise. The redeployment of the workers concerned will be
a potential saving for the hospital who currently employ
outside contractors for security work.
3. In attempting to achieve the level of cut-backs necessary
the hospital has done everything it can to maintain job
security. However, this is not always possible. In this
particular situation it is possible to redeploy the workers
from an area where there is no longer work for them, without
requiring redundancy.
4. The Department of Health would not sanction the payment
of compensation to the two workers involved, and without this
the hospital would not in be a position to meet the cost,
even if it was warranted.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. There was disagreement between the parties as to whether the
two claimants were designated as 'general operatives' or
'boilermen' and there was, therefore, a conflict of views between
them as to the right of Management to redeploy the two workers.
There was not sufficient documentation available to enable the
Court to determine this question.
7. However, the Court accepts that there is not sufficient work
in the boilerhouse to warrant full-time employment for the workers
concerned arising from automation and that their redeployment is
now the best option available. The Court is also of the view that
Management has endeavoured to the best of its ability to cushion
the loss of earnings arising from redeployment. In the present
financial circumstances of the Health Service, the Court does not
find it possible to recommend any further special payments arising
from the changes in duties.
8. The Court, therefore, recommends that the Union should accept
Management's proposals in this case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th December, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman