Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87699 Case Number: LCR11599 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for compensation for loss of shift premium.
Recommendation:
5. In view of the present financial position of the Board the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87699 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11599
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SOUTHERN HEALTH BOARD
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of shift premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. The 4 workers concerned are employed as auxiliaries on wards
in Cork Regional Hospital. As a result of cutbacks in hospital
services which necessitated the closing of wards, the workers were
transferred from shift to day work. As a result they lost their
shift premium. (T/1/6 plus double time for Sunday working). The
Union on behalf of the workers served a claim on the Board for
compensation for the losses incurred. The Board rejected the
claim on the grounds that there is no specific entitlement on the
part of individual staff members to shift work, and in any event,
the Board has no funds for the payment of compensation. Agreement
was not reached on the matter at local level, and on 20th July,
1987, it was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference took place on 4th September,
1987. Agreement was not reached, and on 14th September, 1987, the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Cork on 2nd
December, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Three of the workers concerned have lost approximately
#80.19 per fortnight while the fourth has lost #50.59 per
fortnight. These payments were regular and rostered and
represent a significant loss to the people involved. All four
are the main bread-winners in their respective families. All
have children still going to school and the reduction in wages
has had a detrimental effect on their living standards.
2. The Board have argued that they had to impose these cuts
because of the shortfall in their budget. However, the Union
would argue that the effects of the loss of regular premium
payment to its members is a permanent feature which will be
very difficult for them to sustain.
3. In order to cushion that effect the Union is seeking that
the workers be compensated by 52 times the weekly loss, which
is only a once off payment, while the Board will continue to
enjoy the cost cutting benefits of the move.
3. 4. In support of its claim, the Union would refer the Court
to Labour Court recommendation No. LCR11436, which recommended
compensation for loss of earnings where they were regular and
recurring, and where the employer benefited from the changes
initiated by them.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The four staff members concerned were all originally
employed on straight days and after a time were transferred to
the rosters which involved shift premiums. There is no
specific entitlement to shift work and staff have generally
been allocated to shift type work on the basis of suitability.
There have been instances where junior staff rather than the
senior staff have been given shift work on the basis of
suitability for the type of work involved.
2. At the time that the two wards were closed in May, 1987,
there would have been a surplus of staff working the shift
rotas if the four employees concerned had been continued on
the rosters. The Board had no alternative but to assign them
to duties on a straight day basis if they were to be continued
in employment.
3. Changes in practices have been forced on the Board because
of its present financial constraints. The Board has no funds
from which compensation for loss of earnings in the present
circumstances could be paid.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In view of the present financial position of the Board the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
17th December,___1987.
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.