Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87257 Case Number: LCR11241 Section / Act: S67 Parties: N.E.H.B.(ST. OLIVERS HOSP) - and - ITGWU |
Claim for disturbance compensation on behalf of 48 workers in respect of a move from St. Oliver's Hospital, Dundalk to a new location.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that it would not be justified in
recommending concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87257 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11241
CC87246 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11241
Parties: NORTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for disturbance compensation on behalf of 48 workers in
respect of a move from St. Oliver's Hospital, Dundalk to a new
location.
Background:
2. St. Oliver Plunkett Hospital at present consists of 150 beds
and caters in the main for geriatric and infirm patients in the
north Louth area. The present Hospital which is located on the
outskirts of the town on the Ardee road, is in existence since the
1840's. The new hospital is located on the Dublin road near the
general hospital. The Unions claimed disturbance compensation and
met with the Board on 6th February, 1987 to discuss the claim. As
no progress was possible the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 11th February, 1987.
A conciliation conference was held on 11th March, 1987. As no
agreement was reached both parties agreed to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held in Dundalk on 6th May, 1987.
Unions' arguments:
3. (a) The workers concerned are caused severe disturbance,
annoyance and inconvenience as a result of the move.
Many of the workers have in excess of 20 years' service
with Louth County Council who were the responsible
authority prior to the inception of the health boards.
(b) It is anticipated that considerable savings will accrue
to the Board in both energy and staffing with
approximately ten posts being eliminated on completion
of the transfer.
(c) The present Hospital is about one mile from the new
hospital and the claim for disturbance compensation of
#200 per worker is indeed a modest one.
Board's arguments:
4. (i) There is no significant inconvenience involved for the
vast majority of workers covered in this claim. Any
inconvenience involved for a minority of the workers is
more than compensated for by the better facilities and
working conditions being made available in the new
hospital.
(ii) The Board does not have funds available to pay the
compensation claimed. Any compensation which may
become payable would be at the expense of further job
losses in the Board, combined with a reduced level of
service to the public.
(iii) Concession of this claim would have repercussive
effects for the Board in respect of other grades of
staff involved in this move and also in respect of
similar staff movements in other locations.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that it would not be justified in
recommending concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
Deputy Chairman.
11th June, 1987.
M.D./J.C.