Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86728 Case Number: LCR10905 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MATER PRIVATE HOSPITAL - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of approximately 40 catering, portering, cleaning and reception staff for compensation for disturbance and change in rosters arising from the relocation of the Mater Nursing Home.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends a payment of #500 compensation to the staff who are the
subject of this claim. This compensation is awarded on the basis
of the claimants having agreed to revised working hours in the new
private hospital and to altered working conditions.
The Court does not deem any payment appropriate in respect of the
distance moved.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86728 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10905
CC861104 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10905
Parties: MATER PRIVATE HOSPITAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of approximately 40 catering, portering,
cleaning and reception staff for compensation for disturbance and
change in rosters arising from the relocation of the Mater Nursing
Home.
Background:
2. The old Mater Private Nursing Home had a capacity of 93 beds
and 130 staff. In May, 1986 a new private hospital was opened
(500 yards away) which replaced the nursing home. The new unit
will have a capacity, when fully operational, of 139 beds and 323
staff. Negotiations took place between the Union and management
on the various issues involved in the transfer. The Union sought
compensation for the disturbance involved in the transfer while
management indicated that it did not consider that any
compensation was warranted. It was agreed that the transfer would
take place, the new conditions would come into operation, and the
question of compensation would be referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. It was referred on 23rd June, 1986
and a conciliation conference took place on 8th September, 1986.
No agreement was reached, however, and the matter was referred to
a full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on
10th December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The new Hospital is a business venture in the form of a
limited Company. The increase in beds represents an
increase in trade potential of 50% and a revenue of
100%. In these circumstances management can afford
payment of compensation to workers for disturbance
caused.
(ii) There has been a reduction in the number of workers
employed in the various areas and changes in duties.
This is particularly so in the pantry area where there
has been increased productivity. This is also the case
in relation to restaurant and portering staff. New
machinery and new work practices have been introduced
(details of all these matters were supplied to the
Court).
(iii) There have been changes in the hours for which staff
are rostered. This is particularly so in relation to
one telephonist who has suffered severe disruption
(details supplied).
(iv) The staff have shown flexibility and co-operation in
relation to the transfer.
(v) Staff now experience increased costs since they no
longer have access to free meals as they did
previously.
(vi) This claim is not primarily related to the distance
involved but to the above mentioned factors. The Union
considers that compensation in excess of #1,500 per
person would be fair and reasonable in the
circumstances.
Management's arguments:
4. (a) The move occurred on a phased basis and management did
everything possible to ensure that staff were
inconvenienced to the minimum. The move was to far
better working conditions in a building that was
designed to provide a hospital service unlike the
original building.
(b) Since the opening of the new Hospital management has
done everything it can to try to facilitate the staff
regarding any difficulties which have arisen concerning
working hours. Over recent months there has been a
settling of the working pattern. Changes in rosters
were introduced to ensure that the Hospital provided a
full and proper service to its clients.
(c) Whilst there may be increased flexibility it is in the
context of a totally different working environment.
Management has taken the view that the staff should
have an opportunity to work in all areas of the
Hospital if at all possible. It is essential that a
private hospital ensure that its staffing is such that
the hospital remains competitive.
(d) Porters were given guarantees that their jobs would not
change and that they would work the same hours as in
the former hospital which included overtime working.
Furthermore, additional staff had been recruited in the
porters areas to deal with the additional duties which
have arisen.
(e) A hospital, in carrying out its development programme
is committing itself to substantial investment at
significant interest rates whilst at the same time
entering into an exceptionally competitive field.
Unlike the Nursing Home, the services provided by the
Mater Private Hospital are far broader, far more
expensive, and require far more investment than has
previously been the case. The Nursing Home closed down
due to the poor condition of the existing buildings.
(f) In becoming a full private hospital management believes
that it has offered much greater security of tenure to
the employees than they had previously. Working
conditions have been significantly improved. The
Hospital has stood by all commitments to existing
staff, has tried to facilitate staff where difficulties
have arisen, and has introduced a pension fund with 50%
back-funding at the time of the transfer.
(g) All staff who were working in the Nursing Home and who
did not opt for redundancy have transferred to the new
building. Any payment which is recommended to the
staff here concerned will also have to be made to the
other staff as well, thus generating a fairly
substantial cost to the Hospital which it can not
afford. Furthermore, a transfer of a number of yards
to the new premises does not warrant compensation.
Furthermore, the new facilities, conditions of
employment and security of tenure are adequate return
for the co-operation which the staff have shown in the
transfer and any changes in practices which have
occurred.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends a payment of #500 compensation to the staff who are the
subject of this claim. This compensation is awarded on the basis
of the claimants having agreed to revised working hours in the new
private hospital and to altered working conditions.
The Court does not deem any payment appropriate in respect of the
distance moved.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
Deputy Chairman.
7th January, 1987.
A.K./J.C.