Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86927 Case Number: LCR10985 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HIGHFIELD HOSPITAL - and - LGPSU |
Claims for:- (a) parity of pay for Nurses Aides and State Enrolled Nurses with Hospital Attendants and State Enrolled Nurses employed in the Eastern Health Board. (b) the re-instatement of an agreement on holidays. (c) the introduction of a sick pay scheme.
Recommendation:
12. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends as follows:-
Claim (a) - The introduction of parity of pay:
The Hospital should amend its offer for revised hours rate as
follows:-
On recruitment #24 Per Day
After three (3) months #26 Per Day
After six (6) months #30 Per Day
S.E.N. #36 Per Day
Claim (b): Re-instatement of an agreement on holidays:
The Hospital should restore the offer for annual leave which was
previously implemented.
Claim (c): Introduction of a sick pay scheme:
Seven days uncertified sick leave to apply for the year 1987.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86927 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10985
CC861370 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10985
Parties: HIGHFIELD PRIVATE HOSPITAL
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
Subject:
1. Claims for:-
(a) parity of pay for Nurses Aides and State Enrolled
Nurses with Hospital Attendants and State Enrolled
Nurses employed in the Eastern Health Board.
(b) the re-instatement of an agreement on holidays.
(c) the introduction of a sick pay scheme.
General Background:
2. The Hospital is a private hospital which was established in
1825 to cater for female psychiatric, psychogeriatric and
geriatric patients. It has approximately forty patients and
employs a total of thirty-five workers. These claims which
concern twelve Nurses Aides and two (2) State Enrolled Nurses
were lodged in May 1986. No agreement was reached through local
negotiations and on 18th August, 1986 the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 5th November, 1986 but no agreement was
reached. On 25th November, 1986 the case was referred to the
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 19th December, 1986.
Claim (a): The introduction of parity of pay:
Background:
3. The workers concerned work a twelve hour day on seven days in
each forthnightly period. The present rates of pay of the workers
are as follows:-
Nurses Aides:
(i) On recruitment #20 per day
(ii) after three months #22 " "
(iii) after six months #24 " "
State Enrolled Nurses: #32 " "
This equates to a weekly rate of pay of #84 for Nursing Aides
after six months and #112 for State Enrolled Nurses. The Union is
claiming that the workers should have parity with similar workers
employed in the Eastern Health Board grade whose salary scale
ranges from #122.51 to #131.29 per week. The Hospital offered to
increase the workers' rates of pay as follows:-
Nurses Aides:
(i) on recruitment #24 per day
(ii) after three months #26 " "
(iii) after six months #28 " "
State Enrolled Nurses: #36 " "
This equates to a weekly rate of pay of #89 for Nurses Aides after
six months and #126 for State Enrolled Nurses. The workers
rejected the offer.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) There are identifiable rates for jobs and those rates
should be paid regardless of the owership of a
hospital. The work and responsibilities of the Nurses
Aides and State Enrolled Nurses are equally if not more
demanding than that of an Attendant or State Enrolled
Nurse in Eastern Health Board.
(ii) The Hospital has never proved to the Union that its is
unable to pay the appropriate rate. It must now
produce evidence of its inability to concede the
Union's claim. In the recent past a lot of money has
been spent on the Hospital. Similar investment should
be made in the Workers.
(iii) In a similar case the Labour Court recognised that the
workers concerned were entitled to a closer
relationship with the rates paid by the Eastern Health
Board and recommended accordingly (Labour Court
Recommendation No. 8490 refers).
Hospital's arguments:
5. (a) The Management uses any profit it makes to modernise
the Hospital and improve pay and conditions. Rates of
pay have been increased by 28% in 1983, 33 and third
per cent in 1984 and 20% in 1985. The Hospital's offer
represents an increase of 16.50% to Nurses Aides (12.50% in
the case of Stated Enrolled Nurses) while inflation is
down to 3%.
(b) The Hospital receives little or no funding from the
Eastern Health Board and must cope with its severe
financial problems from its own income. This is
derived mostly from relatives of patients. The
majority of patients are long stay and an increase in
charges is not feasible.
(c) The Hospital acknowledges that the Domestics earn a
higher rate of pay than the Nurses Aides. This anomoly
has existed for some time and it is hoped it will be
eliminated in the near future.
Claim (b): Re-instatement of an agreement on holidays:
Background:
6. The workers had a holiday entitlement of fourteen days. In
October, 1984 the Hospital conceded four extra days annual leave.
In November, 1985 it contended that this concession was made
by mistake and while it would be honoured for the 1985/86 leave
year it would be withdrawn after that. The Union claims that an
agreement was reached to increase the annual leave entitlement to
eighteen days and this should be honoured.
Union's arguments:
7. (i) The Hospital reached an Agreement with the Union for an
annual leave entitlement of eighteen days. That
agreement should be maintained regardless of the legal
minimum entitlement.
(ii) The Workers have little in terms of good conditions.
The implementation of the agreement would not cause
undue hardship within the Hospital.
Hospital's arguments:
8. (a) The increase of four days in the Annual leave was
conceded through a mistake in October, 1984. The
Administrator had only recently joined the Hospital and
assumed that holidays were calculated on an eight hour
day as had been his previous experience with twelve
hour a day working.
(b) The annual leave entitlement of fourteen days at 12
hours per day is equal to four weeks' annual leave.
This annual leave entitlement is well up to the norm.
The Hospital is not prepared to concede the Union's
claim which would give an annual leave entitlement
equal to five weeks and six hours if calculated on
eight hours per day.
(c) The Hospital was prepared to increase the Workers'
annual leave entitlement by one day because they work
twelve hour shifts and recognising to the mistake in
1984. This was conditional on the Hospital's offer on
pay being accepted which was considered a reasonable
approach by the Hospital.
Cliam (c): Introduction of a sick pay scheme:
Background:
9. There is no sick pay scheme in the Hospital at present. The
Union claimed the introduction of a sick pay scheme. It proposed
that as an interim arrangement a partial scheme be introduced
which would give workers an entitlement to pay for seven
uncertified sick days per year. The Hospital rejected the claim
and the proposal.
Union's arguments:
10. (i) The Workers pay full PRSI and are only entitled to
sickness benefit after three days sick absence. They
receive no payment if they are out sick for one or two
days, this causes severe hardship.
(ii) The interim scheme proposed by the Union is part of the
overall sick pay scheme which exists in other
hospitals. It would allow for workers to be paid if
they are sick for only one or two days.
(iii) The Union recognises that change for the better cannot
take place overnight. Its proposal for an interim
scheme is reasonable and should be conceded.
Hospital's arguments:
11. (a) The Hospital is not prepared to consider the
introduction of any sick pay scheme until basic rates
of pay are at an acceptable level. All available money
has been put towards improvements in rates of pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
12. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends as follows:-
Claim (a) - The introduction of parity of pay:
The Hospital should amend its offer for revised hours rate as
follows:-
On recruitment #24 Per Day
After three (3) months #26 Per Day
After six (6) months #30 Per Day
S.E.N. #36 Per Day
Claim (b): Re-instatement of an agreement on holidays:
The Hospital should restore the offer for annual leave which was
previously implemented.
Claim (c): Introduction of a sick pay scheme:
Seven days uncertified sick leave to apply for the year 1987.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
12th February, 1987 -------------
T.O'M/U.S. Deputy chairman