Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86834 Case Number: LCR10939 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PEAMOUNT HOSTIPAL - and - FWUI |
Claim on behalf of 5 workshop supervisors, for an increase in pay.
Recommendation:
6. The Court accepts that the original form of funding is about
to cease and that negotiations are in hand to formalise an
alternative means of funding. It also accepts, however, that the
service provided is an important element in the rehabilitation of
the patients and is worthy of continuation.
/.......
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the negotiations
between the Hospital and the Department of Health should be
concluded as soon as possible. These negotiations should have
regard to the terms of the Court's recommendation No. 10,025 of
11th October, 1985, which indicated that the future funding of the
Centre should be placed on a firm basis in order that the staff
concerned could be accorded rates and privileges similar to those
enjoyed by equivalent staff in Health Boards, etc. The Court also
recommends that pending conclusion of these negotiations, the pay
of the claimants should be increased by 10% with effect from 1st
December, 1986.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86834 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10939
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10939
PARTIES: PEAMOUNT HOSPITAL
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 5 workshop supervisors, for an increase in
pay.
Background:
2. This claim involves 5 workers employed in the Adult Training
Centre at the Hospital and working with mentally handicapped
persons. The current rates of pay for the workers concerned range
from #82.77 to #107.51 per week (details supplied to the Court).
The project commenced in 1983 and has received funding from the
European Social Fund (up to end 1986). This claim was the subject
of a previous Court hearing (when the Union claimed parity in pay
with another institution involved in the training of the mentally
handicapped). That claim was investigated by the Court on 12th
September, 1985, (Labour Court Recommendation No. 10,025 refers)
and the Recommendation was as follows:-
"The Court has noted the uncertainty surrounding the
funding of the Centre and also the repercussions of this
uncertainty which include the temporary nature of staff
appointments, unsatisfactory staff structures and pay
levels. The Court recommends in the circumstances that
management should endeavour, as a matter of urgency, to
have the future funding of the Centre placed on a firm
basis in order that the staff concerned can be accorded
rates and privileges similar to those enjoyed by
equivalent staff employed in Health Boards etc.
In the event of the funding arrangements not being
finalised within three months of the date of receipt of
this recommendation, the parties may return to the Court
for a further recommendation in the matter of pay rates
for the staff concerned".
3. Since this Recommendation was issued no firm arrangements had
been made for funding of the Centre after 1986, and no agreement
had been reached on pay increases. On 17th February, 1986, the
Union referred the matter back to the Court for a further
recommendation. A Court hearing did not take place at that time
as the Hospital was in the process of negotiating with the
Department of Health for funding for the Centre. The Union again
requested a hearing on 30th September, 1986, and the case was
heard by the Court on 16th December, 1986, the earliest date
suitable to both parties.
Union's arguments:
4. (a) The arguments given at the previous Labour Court
hearing still apply.
(b) There have been no improvements in pay for the workers
concerned. The response by the Hospital to any
attempts to negotiate is the possibility of closure of
the Centre.
(c) The workers concerned are not prepared to continue
working on the very low rates of pay, no matter what
the effects on the future of the Centre. The current
rates of pay in another institution for workers
carrying out similar duties is approximately #6,900 -
#9,014 per annum (not inclusive of the 25th wage
round).
(d) It is clear from the previous Recommendation that the
Court considered the wages of the workers to be
unsatisfactory. The Court should proceed logically
from that and recommend that the workers concerned be
given rates of pay and conditions similar to those of
equivalent workers in Health Boards, etc.
Hospital's arguments:
5. (a) The arguments given at the previous Court hearing
still apply.
(b) The previous Recommendation recognised the uncertainty
which surrounded the funding of the Centre. Since
then it has become clear that the finance from the
European Social Fund will finish at the end of 1986.
While discussions have been taking place with the
Department of Health for funding of programmes which
hopefully will include this project and the workers
concerned, no decisions have yet been taken and it is
not therefore possible to enter into discussions on
pay increases until the future of the Centre is known.
(c) The Hospital is committed to trying to secure funding
to maintain the project and proposes to operate the
Centre for as long as possible in 1987 on the basis of
the current rates and conditions applying, to allow
for discussions on future funding. If the rates are
reviewed there will be difficulty in funding and there
will inevitably be a loss of employment.
(d) The Hospital is already under severe pressure due to
economic circumstances in the Health Services. The
Hospital will have a deficit this year and the budget
for next year will probably be cut.
(e) Until the Hospital has secured some basis for the
future of the project and at that stage can enter into
negotiations concerning the workers' conditions of
employment, no changes should be made.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court accepts that the original form of funding is about
to cease and that negotiations are in hand to formalise an
alternative means of funding. It also accepts, however, that the
service provided is an important element in the rehabilitation of
the patients and is worthy of continuation.
/.......
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the negotiations
between the Hospital and the Department of Health should be
concluded as soon as possible. These negotiations should have
regard to the terms of the Court's recommendation No. 10,025 of
11th October, 1985, which indicated that the future funding of the
Centre should be placed on a firm basis in order that the staff
concerned could be accorded rates and privileges similar to those
enjoyed by equivalent staff in Health Boards, etc. The Court also
recommends that pending conclusion of these negotiations, the pay
of the claimants should be increased by 10% with effect from 1st
December, 1986.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd January, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
U.M./P.W. Deputy Chairman