Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87347 Case Number: LCR11263 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CORK POLIO AND AFTERCARE ASSOC - and - ITGWU |
Claims on behalf of nine (non-nursing) workers for (a) the introduction of shift allowance, and (b) compensation for the loss of regular premium earnings for Saturday and Sunday work.
Recommendation:
6. The Court in the circumstances of this case recommends
concession of the Union's claim for a shift premium of 1/6th. The
payment to be made from 1st April, 1987. In light of the above
recommendation the Court does not recommend concession of the
claim for compensation for loss of overtime.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87347 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11263
CC87333 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11263
Parties: CORK POLIO AND GENERAL AFTER-CARE ASSOCIATION
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
(CORK NO. 8 BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claims on behalf of nine (non-nursing) workers for (a) the
introduction of shift allowance, and (b) compensation for the loss
of regular premium earnings for Saturday and Sunday work.
Background:
2. The Association is a body providing services for the needs of
handicapped children and adults. Due to a reduced budget in 1986
a number of measures were proposed and implemented by the
Association. One of these was the closure at weekends of the
Tracton Unit in which the workers here concerned are employed,
thereby reducing it from a seven day week service to a five day
week service, a new roster system was brought into effect to cover
this re-organisation. The changes come into effect from 1st June,
1986.
3. On 14th May, 1986 at local level a number of issues were
discussed including the new roster and the loss of regular weekend
premiums to the members. The Union informed the Association that
they would be pursuing a claim for loss of weekend premiums. On
26th September, 1986, a claim for the introduction of shift
allowance of time plus 1/6 was made on the Association. Both
claims were rejected by the Association and on 23rd February, 1987
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 22nd April, 1987 at
which no agreement could be reached and on 24th April, 1987 the
claims were referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 2nd
June, 1987
Union's arguments:
4. (a) The new roster (details supplied to the Court) involves
six different shifts with a starting time variation of
at least four hours and a difference of at least twelve
hours between the earliest and latest finish. This is
in line with Labour Court Recommendation No. 7001 of
15th March, 1982. A shift allowance is paid to other
health care workers (with the sanction of the
Department of Health) whose hours are not as varied or
widespread as these workers, e.g. in the case of the
Southern Health Board and Brothers of Charity Services
- Lota (details supplied to the Court).
(b) It was obvious to all parties involved in the
negotiations for the new roster that it contained a
shift pattern which would attract shift premium.
Management acknowledged this fact and sought sanction
by letter (details supplied to the Court) from the
Department of Health, which was refused.
(c) Regarding the loss of regular premium earnings for
Saturday and Sunday work, the workers have lost
approximately #35 fortnightly in allowances. As a
regular payment the workers were used to receiving it
and based their living standards on the earnings
received. While compensation is sought for this loss,
if the claim for shift premium were conceded, no
financial loss would have been incurred by the workers.
(d) In the present circumstances, the workers have
co-operated fully with management in the introduction
of changes necessary to improve the services to the
handicapped. No unnecessary obstructions have been
made by the workers in implementing change.
Association's arguments:
5. (i) The new roster (details supplied to the Court) does not
result in a two shift system. A two shift system is
one which has a spread of sixteen hours over a twenty
four hour period. The roster now in operation, does
not provide for this and is not a shift system by
reference to established practice. The Association
does not accept that the claim is valid.
(b) The Department of Health's observations on the claim
indicated that the rosters in operation would not
warrant sanction for shift allowance. Funds would not
therefore be provided by the Department of Health for
payment of such an allowance. The Association cannot
bear any additional cost increases at present. Due to
serious financial cutbacks the Association has had to
re-organise in order to maintain its services for
mentally handicapped persons. While this involves
changes in rosters, such changes should be balanced
against the fact that so far the Association has been
successful in preventing permanent job losses.
(c) The roster now in operation was accepted by the workers
from a choice of two. Rosters are the subject of
review and it is not therefore possible to say that
this roster will remain on a permanent basis.
(d) At present nine workers are directly affected.
However, as part of the Association's mobility policy
workers interchange between the different units over a
period of years. The loss of weekend premiums is not
therefore a permanent loss to the workers, but a
temporary one. This staff mobility means that if the
claim was conceded the other one hundred and two
workers would also be guaranteed compensation for a
temporary loss when working in the Unit. The question
of compensation should not arise when cover in the Unit
was reduced due to financial cutbacks.
(e) Formerly the workers would have worked approximately
twenty six weekends each year. Therefore, the workers
have not suffered a loss of weekend premiums for a full
year. When the workers are working in other units they
will then be working seven day rosters again.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court in the circumstances of this case recommends
concession of the Union's claim for a shift premium of 1/6th. The
payment to be made from 1st April, 1987. In light of the above
recommendation the Court does not recommend concession of the
claim for compensation for loss of overtime.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
--------------
Deputy Chairman.
19th June, 1987.
U.M./J.C.