Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87362 Case Number: LCR11284 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BARRINGTON'S HOSPITAL - and - ITGWU |
Claim, by the Hospital for the transfer of two porters between day and night duty.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the management of the Hospital
requires a degree of flexibility in the operation of the day/night
porter duties for those taking up appointment since 1984. Since
it is no longer possible to have locums for porters, the Hospital
should indicate to the Union the order of priority of the various
portering jobs. Rotation should take place in order to fill
absences within these priorities.
The Court notes management's undertaking that the above
flexibility is not intended as the introduction of a continuous
day/night arrangement.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87362 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11284
CC87533 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11284
PARTIES: BARRINGTON'S HOSPITAL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject;
1. Claim, by the Hospital for the transfer of two porters between
day and night duty.
Background:
2. In the past, the Hospital has always operated on the basis of
having porters permanently assigned to either day or night duty.
In 1984, the Union requested the Hospital to allow two permanent
night porters transfer to two permanent day porter vacancies. The
Hospital Management decided that a straight transfer was not
possible at that time and proposed instead that the two night
porters and a temporary day porter should be interviewed for the
two posts and any resulting vacancy advertised. This was rejected
by the Union who referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner.
The Rights Commissioner recommended that:
(a) the Union accept Managements' offer,
(b) further discussions should be initiated between Unions
and Management concerning policy to be adopted for
transfer between night and day work so as to ensure that
night work should not be permanent for employees
appointed as night porter.
3. Subsequent to this recommendation one night porter resigned
and the remaining night porter and the temporary porter were
interviewed and appointed to the two vacancies. The Hospital
stipulated in the contracts for these two workers that their
working week "may include evening, week-end, night duty and Public
Holiday work ......' Since then all permanent porter vacancies
have been filled on the basis that porters are liable to rotation
when required to do so by the Hospital Management.
4. The Union contended that the Hospital is interfering with the
set pattern of the porters' work, without any discussion with the
Union as to the change in conditions. Porters, whose working
lives had been built around either day or night were now being
transferred in a haphazard manner from one to another. The Union
felt that porters who wanted to transfer from one type of work to
another should have first option rather than the Hospital
recruiting to fill vacancies.
5. The Hospital maintained that the liability to work both days
and nights has always existed and that in the past the Union had
objected to porters being on permanent night duty on the grounds
of social and medical hardship. The Hospital also indicated that
adequate notice of transfer would be given to the porters, which
would not be carried out in a haphazard manner.
6. Agreement could not be reached at a local level and on 1st
April, 1987, the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. At a conciliation conference on 8th April,
1987, the Hospital contended that it had the right to transfer
staff and the Union insisted on the right of consultation and
agreement. As a result no settlement was possible and on 4th May,
1987, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
3rd June, 1987, in Limerick.
Union's arguments:
7. (i) There would be a considerable loss of earnings for
those transferred to day duty which would cause a drop
in the standard of living for those involved.
(ii) The porters on day duty would suffer a number of
disadvantages if they were transferred to night duty.
It would disrupt the life style they were accustomed
to. They would also have to carry out tasks on night
duty which they had never been responsible for on day
duty.
(iii) The Hospital has indicated that a number of porters
are committed to rotation. The Union rejects this.
Custom and practice in the Hospital has always been
that porters on day duty work only on days and those
on night duty work only nights. The staff have
indicated to the Union that they are not prepared to
break with custom and practice.
(iv) The Union contends that while the conditions do state
that the duty may include "evening, week-end, night
-duty etc.", it does not state that rotation of day
and night work will or may take place, nor does it
indicate that this might be required. A quite
reasonable interpretation of that clause is that it is
part of a general statement of conditions for all
staff. Given what would be known of normal practice,
the porter applicant would expect to be placed
permanently on either day or night duty, with week-end
and Public Holiday duty.
(v) The Union has no objection to porters being
transferred if a vacancy exists on day or night duty,
but it must be on a voluntary basis.
Hospital's arguments;
8. (a) At present, there are two distinct groups of porters
employed in the Hospital. Those who did not have it
specified in their contracts that they had the
liability to be rotated and those who have been
appointed since 1984 with this liability stipulated in
their contracts. This dispute involves the latter
group who accepted the conditions, as laid down in
their contracts, without question.
(b) The Union has claimed the Hospital acted incorrectly
in revising the contracts. The Hospital does not
accept this view. The new contracts are in line with
the situation as exists in the Mid-Western Health
Board.
(c) It will create a dangerous precedent if staff can
refuse to comply with the terms of their contracts,
especially in view of the present recruitment embargo.
The Hospital must have the right to assign staff to
meet the demands on the service.
(d) The Hospital is of the view that the rotation of
porters is in the best interests of the porters since
it gives them a better knowledge of the Hospital,
brings everybody under the supervision of the head
porter, prevents fixed practices developing between
individual porters and other staff which may be
detrimental and it is essential for morale that staff
should not be faced with the prospect of doing the
exact same job for the rest of their working lives.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the management of the Hospital
requires a degree of flexibility in the operation of the day/night
porter duties for those taking up appointment since 1984. Since
it is no longer possible to have locums for porters, the Hospital
should indicate to the Union the order of priority of the various
portering jobs. Rotation should take place in order to fill
absences within these priorities.
The Court notes management's undertaking that the above
flexibility is not intended as the introduction of a continuous
day/night arrangement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd July, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman