Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87622 Case Number: LCR11477 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of a craftsman's mate, employed at Galway Regional Hospital, for compensation for loss of earnings due to a period of suspension.
Recommendation:
6. There was a misunderstanding as to whether the transfer was to
be of a temporary or a permanent nature. In the circumstances,
the Court recommends that Management should pay the claimant half
of his nett loss.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87622 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11477
CC871057
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11477
Parties: WESTERN HEALTH BOARD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (GALWAY BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of a craftsman's mate, employed at Galway
Regional Hospital, for compensation for loss of earnings due to a
period of suspension.
Background:
2. In May, 1987, the worker concerned was approached by the
hospital's maintenance supervisor and requested to transfer to the
boilerhouse to fill a vacancy which had arisen there (the Board
had been instructed by the Minister for Health to fill vacancies
through the re-deployment of existing permanent staff).
Management had decided that the vacancies in the boilerhouse would
be filled through the redeployment of surplus manpower in the
maintenance area. Volunteers were sought from within this area
but none were forthcoming so the claimant was chosen on the
grounds of what the Board termed "suitability" and "last in, first
out". The claimant refused the instruction to transfer on the
grounds that he would now have to do shiftwork, which his domestic
circumstances did not allow (details supplied to the Court).
There is disagreement between the parties as to whether or not the
proposed transfer was to be temporary or on-going. The Board
claim that the claimant was told it would be temporary while he
claims he was under the impression that it was to be on an
on-going basis.
3. On the morning of the 4th May, 1987, the claimant was called
to the Hospital Administrator's Office and advised that because he
had failed to report for work in the boilerhouse on the previous
day, he was suspended (the claimant was represented by his Union
at this meeting). The Union claimed that his suspension was
unfair and on the 7th July it referred the matter to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation
conference held in Galway on the 6th August it was agreed that the
suspension be lifted and that the claimant would work under
protest in the boilerhouse for a period of three to four weeks.
This period of time was agreed to allow Management advertise the
job internally in order to fill it by re-deployment. The Union
also sought compensation for loss of earnings during the period of
suspension but Management was not agreeable to this and on the
13th August the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in
Galway on the 30th September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (a) It is the Union's view that the claimant's terms of
employment were that of a craftsman's mate and that he
was covered by the terms of the Craftsman's and
Craftsman's Mate's Productivity Agreement. As such, he
should not be obliged to take up duties on an on-going
basis which are a complete change in his terms of
employment.
(b) This change in his terms of employment would be from
that of regular day shift to that of a seven day cycle
of shift work, which includes week-ends. Due to family
commitments, the claimant is unable to do this type of
work. His wife's medical condition requires him to be
at home during the night or to have special
arrangements made for a member of the family to live in
and medical evidence is available to back this up.
(c) The claimant's suspension was unreasonable and was a
direct consequence of the cut-backs in the hospital
services.
(d) In the past, the worker concerned was always prepared
to assist in carrying out boilerhouse duties on a
short-term basis when Management had difficulties in
getting suitable persons to man the boilerhouse.
However, on this occasion it would appear that the
intention was to transfer him to the boilerhouse for an
indefinite period, if not permanently.
(e) The Union requests the Court to recommend that the
worker's suspension was unreasonable and that he should
be compensated for nett loss of earnings (less
unemployment benefit) which amounts to #1,131.71.
Board's arguments:
5. (a) The Board is of the view that it acted fairly and
reasonably in its treatment of the worker concerned.
It could at any time have terminated his employment due
to his refusal to carry out a reasonable instruction.
It should be noted that he was on a final warning in
relation to previous incidents of refusal to comply
with lawful instructions and had given a written
undertaking to do as instructed in the future (details
supplied to the Court).
(b) The instruction to re-deploy was reasonable as this
work was previously carried out by him and was not
difficult or onerous in any way.
(c) The claimant could have taken up the Board's offer of
boilerhouse work at any time during his suspension but
chose not to. He is not now required to function as a
boilerman and cannot therefore have any grievance in
this area.
(d) It is imperative that the Hospital authorities have the
right to deploy staff as economically and effectively
as possible, having regard to the changing and
particular needs of the hospital. Inflexible and
unco-operative stances, such as in this case, cannot be
tolerated.
(e) The period of suspension arose due to the claimant's
insubordination and refusal to utilise the terms of the
grievance procedure which states inter alia, that "any
staff member aggrieved by an instruction given by a
supervisor, within reason, should carry out such an
instruction under protest and refer the matter for
processing through the proper channels". Any hardship
arising from loss of income due to suspension is
totally self-inflicted. It should be noted that he was
in receipt of unemployment benefit for this period.
His claim for loss of earnings is therefore
unsustainable.
(f) The Board considered his reasons for refusing to
transfer but was conscious of the fact that similar
reasons could be put forward by many of the Board's
employees who were obliged to work unsocial hours.
(g) The Board is adamant that the claimant was informed
that the transfer was on a temporary basis only.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. There was a misunderstanding as to whether the transfer was to
be of a temporary or a permanent nature. In the circumstances,
the Court recommends that Management should pay the claimant half
of his nett loss.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Deputy Chairman
____________________________
Deputy Chairman
22nd October, 1987.
D.H./J.C.