Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86468 Case Number: LCR10940 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OUR LADY'S HOSPITAL - and - ITGWU |
Claims for:- (a) a differential for Nurses Aides' and Household Staff assigned to the Hospital Theatre and (b) payment for public holidays to one worker.
Recommendation:
Claim (a) Introduction of Differentials:
9. The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim (b) Holiday Pay:
10. The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD 86468 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10940
CC 86265 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10940
Parties: OUR LADYS HOSPITAL CRUMLIN
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
Subject:
1. Claims for:-
(a) a differential for Nurses Aides' and Household Staff
assigned to the Hospital Theatre and
(b) payment for public holidays to one worker.
General Background:
2. The staff concerned in claim (a) work in the operating theatre
of the hospital. The Union on behalf of the workers sought an 8%
differential to compensate for what it claims are more extensive
duties and greater responsibility of working in this area. Claim
(b) arose due to a Public holiday falling during the absence due
to sickness of a worker who had exhausted her sick-pay benefits
under the terms of the centrally negotiated Dublin Voluntary
Hospitals Sick Pay Scheme. The hospital's proposed means of
compensation were unacceptable to the Union. Agreement could not
be reached at local level on these issues, and on 6th February,
1986 these matters were referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 17th
April, 1986. No agreement was reached at this conference. On
21st October, 1986, the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation at the request of both
parties. A Court hearing was held on 20th November, 1986.
Claim (a) - A differential for Nurses' Aides and Household Staff
assigned to the Hospital Theatre.
Background:
3. There are three Nurses Aides and two Household Staff employed
in the theatre. The essence of the Union's claim is that
conditions in the theatre are of such an onerous and difficult
nature that the Nurses' Aides and Household staff employed in that
area should be given a pay differential of 8%. It contends that
conditions in other areas of the hospital are much less stressful,
and do not have the hazards associated with working in and around
the operating theatre. The hospital rejected the claim for a
differential for these two groups on the grounds that the duties
involved when assigned to the theatre are within the range of
duties appropriate to the categories involved.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The duties of a Nurses' Aide in the operating theatre
are much more difficult and pressurised than in any
other area of the hospital. No member of the staff can
afford to relax or become distracted, as the life of a
patient could be jeopardized.
(ii) Working in the operating theatre involves the Nurses'
Aides in a number of technical duties which are not
required in other areas of the hospital. These duties
are vital to the proper functioning of the theatre and
must be carried out to high standards of excellence and
hygiene. These duties and responsibilities can only be
properly recognised by the introduction of an 8%
differential (details of duties with Court).
(iii) Working in the operating theatre involves the Nurses'
Aides in a number of health hazards which do not obtain
outside of the operating theatre (details with Court).
(iv) There already is a precedent for the Union's claim
within the hospital. Theatre porters who are employed
in the same area as the claimants enjoy an 8%
differential on their existing rates.
(v) The claim for a differential for the two household
staff members employed in the theatre is based on the
same criteria as that for the Nurses, namely that
the duties of household staff employed in the theatre
are more onerous and hazardous than their duties in
other areas of the hospital. The precedent set by the
porters is as relevant for the household staff, as for
Nurses' Aides.
Hospitals arguments:
5. (a) The Hospital has rejected the claims as it considers
that the duties involved when assigned to the theatre
are within the range of duties appropriate to the
categories concerned. There are no differentials paid
in the Health Service to these categories in respect of
the duties involved. It would be entirely
inappropriate for the Hospital to introduce such
differentials. The Dept. of Health concurs with these
views (details with Court).
(b) The duties and responsibilities of household staff
assigned to theatre are similar to the range of duties
and responsibilities of those assigned to other areas
within the Hospital. With regard to the claim in
respect of nurses aides, it is also submitted that the
level of responsibility is equal to that of other
nurses aides assigned to other areas within the
Hospital., e.g., Physiotherapy Unit, CSSD, OPD, Special
Care Unit, X.Ray Unit. There are no grounds for
treating those assigned to the Theatre more or less
favourably than others.
(c) In the course of discussions, the Union submitted a
list of duties and responsibilities for Nurses Aides'
assigned to the theatre. In the Hospital's view, this
list is both inaccurate and overstated. The Hospital
has submitted a job description to the Union side in
response. In the Union document, there are many
responsibilities claimed that are not responsibilities
or duties of nurses aides, but those of trained nursing
staff who are present in a supervisory capacity at all
times in all areas of the operating suite (details with
Court).
(d) It is submitted that the introduction of new
differentials to new categories would have serious
financial and industrial relations ramifications, both
within Crumlin Hospital, where other staff with similar
duties and responsibilities could claim such a
differential, and within the Health Service generally
where these differentials are not paid. Such
additional costs cannot be borne within a Health
Service already operating in a serious deficit
situation.
Claim (b) - payment for public holiday:
Background:
6. This claim arose out of a specific instance when a worker was
out sick for a period of time and had exhausted her sick-pay
benefits under the terms of the centrally negotiated Dublin
Voluntary Hospitals Sick Pay Scheme. A public holiday fell during
this period of absence. The Hospital offered to "top up" the
worker's social welfare payment for that day, in order that the
worker would receive a full days pay in accordance with her
entitlement under the Holidays Employees Act, 1973. The Union
rejected this offer on the basis that there is no such agreement
in operation on those occasions when a public holiday occurs and a
worker is not in receipt of sick pay. The claim is in respect of
all Union members employed in the Hospital.
Union's arguments:
7. (i) Under the Holidays Employees Act, a worker is entitled
to a paid day off or an extra day's pay in lieu and
this applies to public holidays. The Union also
understands that under the same Act, a person cannot
have holidays while out sick and therefore in order to
conform with the Law, the worker can only receive his
entitlement on resuming work and therefore the
management are compelled to give either an extra day's
leave or an extra day's pay.
(ii) In Labour Court recommendation No. 6341 the Court
recommended that the Company pay the workers concerned
who were out sick when a public holiday occurred.
Hospitals arguments:
8. (i) The hospital strongly contests the Union's views on the
issue in dispute. It feels that a topping up
arrangement is proper both on legal and on practical
grounds. Were the Union approach to be adopted, a
double payment would be received by the employee, who
would thereby benefit from absences on public holidays.
It is submitted that such an approach is undesirable
and contrary to public policy and to the intention of
the Holidays Employee(s) Act, 1973.
(ii) The Hospital's approach on this issue concurs with FUE
opinion in regard to entitlement in respect of public
holidays. It is submitted that this approach is both
reasonable and practical, and should be accepted by the
Trade Union. It is further submitted that concession
of the Union's claim would have serious implications
for employers generally.
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim (a) Introduction of Differentials:
9. The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim (b) Holiday Pay:
10. The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
--------------------
16th January, 1987. Chairman.
P.F./U.