Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86854 Case Number: LCR10921 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CARA CHESHIRE HOME - and - ITGWU |
Claims on behalf of 22 workers for:- (a) travel allowance (b) lump-sum payment from the 23rd wage round and (c) calculation of night rates.
Recommendation:
13. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties is of the view that the claimants have an established pay
parity with similar workers in the Eastern Health Board. The
Court recommends, however, that, because of the present difficult
financial position of the Home, consideration of the Union's
claims should be deferred until April, 1987 and then considered in
the context of the financial situation obtaining at that time. In
the meantime, management should allow the present arrangements
concerning the travel allowance to stand.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86854 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10921
CC861261 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10921
PARTIES: CARA CHESHIRE HOME
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims on behalf of 22 workers for:-
(a) travel allowance
(b) lump-sum payment from the 23rd wage round and
(c) calculation of night rates.
General background:
2. The Cheshire Homes were first established in Ireland in 1963
and now operate seven Homes. The above claims are in respect of
22 non-nursing staff in the Cara Cheshire Home in the Phoenix
Park. This Home was opened in 1974 and at present caters for 36
residents.
3. At the end of November, 1985, the trustees of the Cheshire
Foundation in Ireland disbanded the management committee of the
Home arising from a large debt which had accumulated. Three
trustees are at present managing the Home on an interim basis
pending the appointment of a new management committee to take over
responsibility there.
4. In June, 1986, the Union, on behalf of the workers concerned,
served the above claims on the Home. The Home rejected the claims
and as no agreement could be reached at local level the matters
were referred, on 23rd July, 1986, to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. Following a conciliation conference, which was
held on 3rd October, 1986 (the earliest date suitable to both
parties) the matters were referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 8th December, 1986.
Claim (a) - travel allowance
Background:
5. The current rate of travel allowance in the Home is #9.68 per
week. The Union on behalf of the workers concerned, served a
claim on the Home for the restoration of the allowance to the
level obtaining in the Eastern Health Board, with appropriate
retrospection, the current rate of which is #11.11 per week, on
the basis of the well established relationship which the Union
contends exists between the Home and the Board in respect of pay
and conditions of employment. The Home rejected the claim and
informed the Union that it intended ceasing payment of the
allowance due to the financial difficulties of the Home. However,
following the granting of a five year loan from the founder of the
Cheshire Homes, the Home offered to let the present holders of the
allowance retain same on a personal basis at its current level.
This was rejected by the Union.
Union's arguments:
6. (i) In seeking concession of this claim the Union is
merely trying to restore the well established parity
which has existed since 1982 between the Home and the
Eastern Health Board in respect of pay and conditions
for the same grade of worker, with appropriate
retrospection.
(ii) The workers concerned have fallen out of line in
respect of travel allowance with similar workers in
the Eastern Health Board through the failure of the
Home to increase the level of the allowance in line
with increases in basic pay.
(iii) The suggestions by management to cease payment of the
allowance or to continue payment of it on a personal
basis are totally unacceptable to the Union. The
Union is seeking payment of this allowance at the
level obtaining in the Eastern Health Board to all
future staff as well.
(iv) When payment of the allowance was first introduced by
the Eastern Health Board management of the Home had no
objection to extending the payment to the workers
concerned at the same level. No valid reason exists
therefore, why this should not continue for the
future.
Home's arguments:
7. (a) The former management of the Home introduced travel
allowance in error in the Home in 1982. There is no
justification for the payment of this allowance in the
Home as none of the workers concerned are asked to
travel in the course of their duties.
(b) The level of funding received from the Eastern Health
Board for 1986 was insufficient to keep the Home in
operation. Accordingly, savings had to be made and
the residents and staff were advised accordingly. One
of the savings proposed was the discontinuance of the
travel allowance but as a compromise the Home, in the
course of discussions with the Union on the matter,
offered to continue payment of the allowance, at its
current level, to the workers concerned on a personal
basis. The Home considers this to be a fair and
reasonable proposition in the circumstances.
Claim (b) - lump-sum payment from the 23rd wage round
Background:
8. The 23rd wage round was implemented in the Home from the 1st
October, 1983, but was due from 1st May, 1983. The Union says
that a lump sum payment in respect of retrospection was due to be
paid to the workers in 1986 at the rate of #8.35 per week for the
period in question, in accordance with paragraph 3.1 of the
amendment to the 1983 public service pay agreement. The total
amount due to each worker, according to the Union is #183.70 but
the Home has not paid same to date. Accordingly, the Union served
a claim on the Home for the payment of the lump-sum in question.
The claim was rejected by the Home.
Union's arguments:
8. (i) In accordance with the terms of the public service pay
agreement the workers are due payment of the lump-sum
in question. This has already been paid to similar
workers in the Eastern Health Board.
(ii) Management claim that there is no written agreement
regarding the payment of the lump-sum in question.
However, the fact that management has always accepted
in the past the established relationship which exists
between the workers concerned and similar workers in
the Eastern Health Board in respect of pay and
conditions of employment is, in itself, an agreement
in principle which must be upheld.
Home's arguments:
9. (a) No records exists in the Home of an agreement to pay
the lump-sum in question and the Union has been
informed accordingly.
(b) The Home does not accept the Union's claim that the
workers have parity with employees of the Eastern
Health Board in respect of pay and conditions of
employment.
(c) Given the current poor financial situation obtaining
in the Home, it is not in a position to concede this
claim.
Claim (c) - calculation of night rates
Background:
10. At present night duty in the Home is calculated on the basis
of a 102 hour fortnight. The Union on behalf of the workers
concerned, served a claim on the Home for the calculation of night
duty on the basis of a 112 hour fortnight. The Home rejected the
claim but offered to consider it in the context of the 1987
budget. This was rejected by the Union.
Union's arguments:
11. (i) A total of 112 hours is worked per fortnight by those
workers who work nights (details supplied to the
Court). However, night duty is calculated on the
basis of a 102 hour fortnight. The workers should be
paid for the hours worked.
(ii) The Home has agreed to try to provide for the payment
of 112 hours night duty per fortnight in its 1987
budget. However, the workers consider that they are
entitled to the payment of some retrospection on this
arrangement.
Home's argument:
12. Management has informed the Union that when the budget
for 1987 was being formulated that it would endeavour
to include the increase sought. In the light of the
financial difficulties in which the Home finds itself,
this is a reasonable offer.
RECOMMENDATION:
13. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties is of the view that the claimants have an established pay
parity with similar workers in the Eastern Health Board. The
Court recommends, however, that, because of the present difficult
financial position of the Home, consideration of the Union's
claims should be deferred until April, 1987 and then considered in
the context of the financial situation obtaining at that time. In
the meantime, management should allow the present arrangements
concerning the travel allowance to stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th January, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman