Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87232 Case Number: LCR11264 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ST. VINCENTS HOSPITAL - and - EET&PU |
Claim on behalf of five workers for (i) compensation for loss of overtime, and (ii) breaking of a shift agreement.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the claims before it and has come to the conclusion that the
workers concerned were granted the overtime at the soonest
practical date after the Hospital made the offer and that a case
for retrospective payment cannot be sustained. The Court does not
therefore recommend concession of this claim.
On the further issue of the overtime incorporated in the shift
cover having regard to the overall requirement of the Hospital to
reduce costs the Court does not consider that such hours should be
excluded from consideration. The Court does not therefore
recommend concession of this claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87232 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11264
CC87173 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11264
Parties: ST. VINCENT'S HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
ELECTRICAL ELECTRONIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS & PLUMBING UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of five workers for (i) compensation for loss
of overtime, and (ii) breaking of a shift agreement.
Background:
2. Due to financial cutbacks the Hospital has introduced a number
of cost saving measures. One of these was the decision to reduce
expenditure in the maintenance department of the Hospital, by
withdrawing overtime with effect from early April, 1986.
3. At local level talks in 1986, management offered four hours
overtime per week to all maintenance staff. Management states
that in the case of these workers, the offer was made in August,
1986 to take effect from 1st September, 1986 (four hours overtime
per week per person has been introduced since that date). This
was unacceptable to the Union who states that it was agreed in
April, 1986 that four hours overtime per person per week would be
introduced from that date and claims that payment should be made
for this period. The Union also claimed that management had
broken a shift agreement in operation whereby workers on a Tuesday
shift had formerly worked from 6.00 a.m. to 2 p.m. are now
required to finish at 12.00 p.m. (loss of two hours overtime). On
27th January, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 24th February, 1987 at which no agreement could be reached and
on 20th March, 1987 the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 8th June, 1987 (an earlier hearing was cancelled due to
the unavailability of one of the parties).
Union's arguments:
4. (i) In April, 1986 management offered four hours overtime
per week. This offer was rejected by union
representatives of other groups but accepted by the
representative of this Union. This acceptance was a
major attempt to settle the matter, considering that a
substantial amount of overtime had been removed. The
Union and workers were of the opinion that the matter
had been resolved and that four hours overtime per week
would take effect from that date.
(ii) The Labour Court in Recommendation No. 11025 of 26th
February, 1987, relating to another group of workers on
this matter took the view that Management's offer of
four hours overtime per person per week is reasonable.
This is a view that this Union accepted in April, 1986
and it cannot be responsible for the time delay due to
the inability of management and other unions to reach
agreement at that time. The workers here concerned
should not now suffer loss of earnings when they
examined the situation realistically and generously at
that time.
(iii) A long standing shift agreement (details supplied to
the Court) has been in operation in the Hospital. On
the Tuesday shift which was 6.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m.
workers have always remained at work until 2.00 p.m.
The 12.00 p.m. finishing time was never enforced by
management and on certain occasions it would not be
possible for the worker on this shift to leave earlier
than 2.00 p.m.
(iv) The Hospital has not conformed with normal
management/union procedures. The conditions of
employment of the workers should be re-instated and the
workers compensated for their loss.
Hospital's arguments:
5. (a) Reduction in overtime was necessary in order to reduce
spending. In June, 1986 Management proposed to the
workers that they would request the Board of Management
to re-introduce some overtime if the claims for
compensation were withdrawn. In July, 1986 the Board
of Management agreed that four hours overtime per
worker per week could be introduced. This was offered
to the workers with effect from 1st September, 1986.
Management were not in a position to re-introduce
overtime without approval from the Board and so would
not have been in the position of offering this from
April, 1986.
(b) Following the decision to reduce overtime, other groups
of workers in the maintenance department sought
compensation. These claims were rejected by the Labour
Court, Labour Court Recommendation Nos. 10,895 of 15th
January, 1987 and 11,025 of 26th February, 1987 refer.
In addition, in a recent claim on another Hospital for
compensation for loss of overtime earnings the Labour
Court recommended against the claim, Labour Court
Recommendation No. 10,632 of 23rd July, 1986 refers.
(c) If this claim was conceded other groups affected by
cutbacks in the Hospital would lodge compensation
claims. Compensation payments would have to be met
from the current allocation, which would result in more
cutbacks.
(d) Management does not agree that shift work arrangements
in the Hospital have been broken. In the five week
roster which has operated, on one occasion a worker is
scheduled for a six hour rather than an eight hour
shift in order to preserve the forty hour week pattern.
In practice the worker involved was allowed and
sometimes required by management to remain at work for
an additional two hours on an overtime basis. The ban
on overtime introduced in April, 1986 included these
hours. It is the responsibility of the Hospital
Engineer to decide how to utilise the four hours
overtime now introduced, no special case should be made
for the removal of specific hours of overtime.
(e) The 1987 budget allocation for the Hospital has been
significantly reduced and it is necessary for the
Hospital to introduce a range of cost saving measures
within the remaining eight months of this year. The
budgetary position makes it impossible for the Hospital
to consider the present claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the claims before it and has come to the conclusion that the
workers concerned were granted the overtime at the soonest
practical date after the Hospital made the offer and that a case
for retrospective payment cannot be sustained. The Court does not
therefore recommend concession of this claim.
On the further issue of the overtime incorporated in the shift
cover having regard to the overall requirement of the Hospital to
reduce costs the Court does not consider that such hours should be
excluded from consideration. The Court does not therefore
recommend concession of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
----------------
Deputy Chairman
19th June, 1987
U.M./J.C.