Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86880 Case Number: LCR10895 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ST. VINCENT'S HOSP - and - ITGWU |
COMENSATION FOR LOSS OF OVERTIME
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances of this case, the Court considers that
the Union should accept the management's offer of 4 hours overtime
per person per week. The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86880 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10895
CC861486 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10895
Parties: ST. VINCENTS' HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Parties:
1. Claim, on behalf of four maintenance helpers, for compensation
for loss of overtime.
Background:
2. Prior to April, 1986 the four workers worked an approximate
average of 16 hours overtime per week for which they earned
approximately #75 each. They work a forty hour week, Monday to
Friday and their basic weekly rates of pay are #131.07 to #142.32.
In April, 1986, management withdrew this overtime as part of an
expenditure cutting exercise. This was not acceptable to the
workers who sought compensation. Following local discussions,
management agreed to guarantee a minimum of four hours overtime
per week if the claim for compensation be dropped. This was not
acceptable to the Union and the matter was referred, on 5th
September, 1986, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
A conciliation conference took place on 10th November, 1986. No
agreement was reached and the matter was referred to a full
hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 11th
December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) There has been a severe reduction in the take home pay
of these workers (details supplied). They have been
working this overtime since they commenced employment
with the Hospital, and have built their living
standards accordingly.
(ii) The Labour Court has recently awarded compensation for
loss of overtime in a number of cases (details
supplied).
Management's arguments:
4. (a) The Hospital has an obligation to try to cut back
expenditure where possible. Whilst it is accepted that
the work carried out by the maintenance department is
essential, the extent of maintenance which a hospital
carries out is discretionary. In this particular
circumstance, regrettably, the Hospital had to
sacrifice the level of maintenance in return for
maintaining services and employment. Maintenance
helpers are not the only people who have suffered such
a loss.
(b) This is not the first time that overtime has been cut
back in this department. On previous occasions, for
various reasons, overtime has been cut back and this
has been done without compensation being paid.
Consequently, there is some element of precedence to
the management's actions.
(c) The financial difficulties facing the Hospital are
being faced by every other hospital as well as by many
other employers. Generally, where it has been shown
that an employer has introduced a cutback because he
cannot afford to carry on that particular operation,
then the Court has recognised this and rejected claims
for compensation. In the case of the health services
this had also been recognised by the Court.
(d) Concession of the claim would result in repercussive
claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances of this case, the Court considers that
the Union should accept the management's offer of 4 hours overtime
per person per week. The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
Deputy Chairman.
15th January, 1987.
A.K./J.C.