Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86718 Case Number: LCR10962 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ST. VINCENT'S CENTRE - and - ATGWU |
Dispute concerning a claim for payment of a travel allowance for non-nursing personnel which is paid to similar personnel in the Eastern Health Board.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that parity with E.H.B. in this
instance relates only to basic rates and not to other conditions.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Unions
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86718 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10962
D831076 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10962
Parties: ST. VINCENT'S CENTRE
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for payment of a travel allowance
for non-nursing personnel which is paid to similar personnel in
the Eastern Health Board.
Background:
2. Travel allowance in the Eastern Health Board (E.H.B.) was
introduced in 1981 as a result of established relativity between
Dublin area non-nursing grades and Dublin Corporation general
operative grades. The Union first served a claim for travel
allowance in 1983. It was due to be the subject of a Labour Court
hearing at that time. However this grade of worker was due a
special increase of #8.75 a week which had been made to low paid
workers under Public Service Pay Agreement. Under the proposals
it was not possible for two claims to be implemented under the
agreement. Consequently the Union opted for the increase for the
low paid workers. In March, 1986, the Union reactivated their
claim for travel allowance. Management met with the Union side
and as no progress was made it became the subject of a
conciliation conference on 22nd July, 1986. As no agreement was
reached it was agreed by both parties on the 5th September to
refer the issue to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 7th November,
1986, a date suitable to both parties.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) In 1980 a claim on behalf of the non-nursing staff for
parity with rates of pay in the E.H.B. was served.
Following long negotiations between the Union, the
Management, F.U.E. and the Department of Health it was
agreed in principle to introduce the E.H.B. rates.
Therefore from 1/11/82 the non-nursing staff had the
same rates of pay as the E.H.B. Had the E.H.B. staff
being paid travel allowance at that time, the Union
would have pursued its claim also.
(b) The Union has fought to get parity with the E.H.B.
rates and any new developments which changed these
rates should also apply to the staff of St. Vincent's
Centre.
(c) If such rates and conditions do not apply to the staff
at St. Vincent's Centre, there is a danger that they
will lose parity with the E.H.B. and revert back to
"square one."
Management's arguments:
4. (i) The agreement between St. Vincent's Centre and the
Union gave parity with rates of pay only and did not
relate to any other condition of employment.
(ii) Other institutions which enjoy parity with E.H.B. rates
of pay are not in receipt of a travel allowance.
(iii) The Department of Health does not have sufficient funds
to allocate to St. Vincent's Centre to pay the costs of
the claim if conceded. Also the repercussive effects
of such a claim would put a further serious strain on
the limited resources of the Health Services.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that parity with E.H.B. in this
instance relates only to basic rates and not to other conditions.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Unions
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
Deputy Chairman.
3rd February, 1987.
M.D./J.C.